ATR Lists 21 Tax Increases Signed Into Law Under Barack Obama

Americans for Tax Reform provides a list and details to 21 tax increases that have been signed into law by Barack Obama since he took office.

Details at ATR, but the list itself is;

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014)

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014)

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013)

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018)

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011)

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011)

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010)

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013)

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010)

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately)

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010)

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014)

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013)

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012)

20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately)

21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately)

ATR provides the bill name and page number as well as explanations and charts, so click on over.

Also notice how many of those tax increases are not set to go into effect until after the presidential election in 2012?

Hat Tip Drudge @Twitter.

.

Warren Buffett Firm Owes Backtaxes From 2002 Forward

Flashback- Billionaire Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying that the Government should stop coddling the super rich, like him, and make them pay more in taxes. It was all the rage on Liberal websites throughout the blogosphere and media outlets with conservative sites posting the address to the Bureau of the Public Debt for Buffett and like-minded super rich people to voluntarily feel free to mail in donations and/or use a handy online form, to donate to the cause.



Today we see that Buffett owns a firm called Berkshire Hathaway that openly admits that it owes backtaxes since as long ago as 2002.

“We anticipate that we will resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the 2002 through 2004 tax years ... within the next 12 months,” the firm’s annual report says.



It also cites outstanding tax issues for 2005 through 2009.

Not bad enough that Buffett is a hypocrite though, the same article shows him for a liar as well about how "coddled" he and others are.

Start, for example, with his grossly disingenuous recent claim that, as he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.

Fact is, unlike most other folks, Warren Buffett gets most of his income from dividends and capital gains, which are nominally taxed at 15 percent.

Left unsaid is that much of that is taxed at 35 percent (via the corporate income tax) before he even gets his hands on it. So in effect, he’s paying taxes twice (that is, when his companies actually pay, anyway).

FYI: Donations can be made to:



Attn Dept G

Bureau of the Public Debt

P. O. Box 2188

Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188



.. or visit:



https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454



Silence from the Liberals that jumped on Buffett's op-ed bandwagon regarding his extreme hypocrisy and lies.



.

Former CEO of American Express On Raising Taxes On The Rich: 'After all, I did earn it'

Harvey Golub is a former chairman and CEO of American Express and he has a message for the MSM, Warren Buffet, Barack Obama and every liberal Democrat that wants even more of his money.



WSJ:

Over the years, I have paid a significant portion of my income to the various federal, state and local jurisdictions in which I have lived, and I deeply resent that President Obama has decided that I don't need all the money I've not paid in taxes over the years, or that I should leave less for my children and grandchildren and give more to him to spend as he thinks fit. I also resent that Warren Buffett and others who have created massive wealth for themselves think I'm "coddled" because they believe they should pay more in taxes. I certainly don't feel "coddled" because these various governments have not imposed a higher income tax. After all, I did earn it.

It is about time time someone said it and thank you Mr. Golub for finally being the one to do so.



He earned his money and liberal Democrats and Barack Obama want to take more from him than they already do. He explains exactly how much they already take from him.

Now that I'm 72 years old, I can look forward to paying a significant portion of my accumulated wealth in estate taxes to the federal government and, depending on the state I live in at the time, to that state government as well. Of my current income this year, I expect to pay 80%-90% in federal income taxes, state income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and federal and state estate taxes. Isn't that enough?

"Here's my message: Before you "ask" for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely. Then you'll need less of my money."---- Harvey Golub



Read the whole thing.



Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters likens the the spending problem the government has to a drug addiction:

Going back to the illicit drug analogy, we currently have a government hooked on spending. The Left claims the solution is to give it more money.



Isn't that like claiming you can cure a junky's problem by giving him more heroin?

Why yes it is. Also as any drug addict will do, they will go to any length. They will lie, they will cheat and they will steal to get their next fix.



.

Fact Of The Day: Total Direct Revenue Rose After Bush Tax Cuts Enacted

The Washington Examiner provides a piece discussing the ongoing debt limit battle, which is a must-read, but one specific fact in that article is something everyone needs to see and pass around.

"Everybody talks about how much the Bush tax cuts cost, and we're saying, no, they led to a huge increase in revenue," says the Republican involved in the fight. It's true. According to historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget, government revenue shot higher after the Bush tax cuts were enacted. Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 -- an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent. In 2007, the federal deficit shrank to $160 billion -- all after tax cuts that Obama and his Democratic allies portray as disastrous.

Click here and look at the "total direct revenue" for 2003, then click here and look at the "total direct revenue" in 2007.

.

Tax Fight: Small Business Owner Explains How Democrats Have Blurred The Lines

There was a comment made on a post written last week. The comment was made by a small business owner, J. Motes, and was in response to another comment left, and his response is by far the best explanation from a personal point of view, on how Obama and Democrats have managed to blur the lines between the non-productive rich and the productive small business owners who would pay the price of Obama/Democrat's policies should they be allowed to raises taxes.

J. Motes:

Jeff:
Good questions. I think the confusion arises because we are talking about two different groups of wealthy folks, and politicians deliberately want to blur the distinction between them. First are the job creators you noted. Most of these people are not super rich, but they are responsible for creating most of the jobs, and job growth, in our economy. The uncertainty in our economic climate -- tax rates, regulations, health care requirements, all the onerous burdens the dead hand of the state can place on businesses -- makes these job creators reluctant to commit to new employees and business expansion. If they take the risk and government then punishes them for it, they may end up going out of business entirely. This would not be good for their employees or for their own incomes. Many small business owners, like me, are not raking it in. Losing a business would be an even bigger financial blow than it would be for the employees who will have lost a paycheck, but who won't have also lost a lifetime of investment in the cost of building a business. Many of us have made considerable sacrifices to achieve even a small measure of profitability, and a rapacious government is too formidable an opponent to trust.

The second group of wealthy folks includes the super rich most people think the politicians are targeting. The most popular target in the class war being waged is found in the financial industry: bankers, investors, stockbrokers, etc. These people do not actually do anything to create wealth, that is, to produce something that adds money to the economy (as, say, a maker of tennis shoes or backhoes or wine does). Instead, the financial class merely moves around the money that others have earned. By gambling and speculating, they are able to rake in wealth from other gamblers who hope to make an easy profit. The small business owner doesn't benefit from any of this financial activity, but he will be castigated just the same and subjected to tax rates and other costs that will wipe out his small margin of profit. Similarly, the homeowner whose mortgage is resold to others, always with enough profit built in to create a huge pile of dough, benefits those who are moving money around, but doesn't deliver a penny to those whose property is the collateral. The "big money boys" use political donations and other means to ensure they receive privileged treatment from legislators, including exemptions from the rules that burden small businesses.

Some of these super rich are not individuals, but are huge corporations that seek privileges from government that let them prosper while forcing smaller, less well connected competitors to the side. Jeffrey Immelt, who runs GE, is making fantastic sums for his company by exploiting his relationship with Obama. Taxpayer subsidies underwrite many of their expenses, and they are exempt from rules others must follow. Their privileged status means that GE avoids paying taxes. Again, the burden falls on small business owners -- the bedrock of our economy -- not on the big boys.

Other classes of people also make pots of money by redistributing other people's money. Trial lawyers build personal fortunes not by producing anything of tangible value, but by redistributing money from one party to another -- mostly to themselves. Trial lawyers are among the biggest contributors to the Democrats, which they use to achieve privileged status denied to most small business owners. Unions do the same thing: they deliver union dues to Democrats, who then make laws that privilege unions. The pension crisis most states now face is but one example of the ruinous nature of this arrangement. Well, ruinous for taxpayers, but pretty swell for union members, union bosses, and politicians. (Note the retribution that unions and government are taking against Boeing, which wants to open a plant in a state that does not require employees to join a union. No union = no union dues = no dollars in political coffers. Can't have that!)

So when politicians are talking about raising taxes on the filthy rich, they want us to think that those nasty old bankers, corporate swells, and union thugs are finally going to get what's coming to them. Unfortunately, these protected groups will be largely immune to the tax and regulatory burden. The real losers will be the small business owners, ordinary folk like you and me who have no means of protecting ourselves against the power of the government.

Don't be fooled by political rhetoric that claims taxes will be extracted from the super rich. It's the small business owner, already suffering in a poor economy, who will be hurt the most.

I wouldn't mind taxes if everyone followed the same rules and if government weren't spending our money on stuff taxpayers don't want. And I really don't like feeling that I have been turned into a slave who works to support the half of America that lives off government subsidies and handouts. Cut government spending first!

Well put Mr. Motes.

.

That Which We Call A Tax Increase By Any Other Name Would Still Cost As Much

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet"----Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet

Via Boston Globe, AP writer Erica Werner, shows how many different ways Barack Obama avoids using the words "tax increase" as as he attempts to raise them on the American people.

Proposals under consideration include raising taxes on small business owners and potentially low- and middle-income families. You won't hear about that from Obama. Instead the president focuses on the very rich, and speaks euphemistically. Here are a few of the phrases the president has used of late to talk about what amounts to raising taxes for some:

-- "What we need to do is to have a balanced approach where everything is on the table."

--"We need to take on spending in the tax code."

--"The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of are tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires; tax breaks for oil companies and hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners."

--"You can't reduce the deficit to the levels that it needs to be reduced without having some revenue in the mix."

A tax increase is a tax increase is a tax increase, no matter what type of politic-speak you try to use and it costs the American taxpayers just as much no matter the words Obama and Democrats use describe it.

.

Obama Lies About Tax Rates Figures

I would say Barack Obama simply misunderstood reports but this type of thing, where he misrepresents or misstates actual facts, happens too often for it to simply be a misunderstanding or a mistake. When a president makes public statements, one would assume that as president, he would have the available resources to confirm the information he is speaking about.

At Wednesday’s Twitter Town Hall, President Obama claimed: “We actually now have the lowest tax rates since the 1950s. Our tax rates are lower now than they were under Ronald Reagan. They’re lower than they were under George Bush — senior or George Bush, junior.” This statement is false.

According to The Tax Foundation’s Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History table, the top marginal tax rate is currently 35 percent. In 1992, under President George H.W. Bush the top marginal rate was 4 points lower than today’s rate at 31 percent. In 1988, under President Ronald Reagan the top marginal rate was 7 points lower than today’s rate at 28 percent.

Taxes collected as a percentage of the GDP are at historic lows, which is far different than tax rates and Obama is smart enough to know the difference.

He simply hopes the American public is not smart enough to know the difference.

Since he is in the middle of a very public battle with Republicans where Obama and liberal Democrats want to raise taxes and Republicans want to lower government spending to address our budget issues, this misrepresentation is obviously deliberate.

.

Obama's Ideology Of Biting The Hand That Feeds Us

[Update] This 2:27 minute Rubio video is so awesome that I am putting the update of it on top of this piece..... Rubio speaks to class warfare: (H/T Hot Air)

“It’s class warfare, and it’s the kind of language you would expect from a leader of a third-world country, not the President of the United States.”

[End update]

Original post below

Who funds our government? Not who lends us more money to spend more, but where does the bulk of our revenue come from?

It comes from income taxes paid by the rich.

Tax Year 2008

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$380,354	38.02
Top 5%	$159,619	58.72
Top 10%	$113,799	69.94
Top 25%	$67,280	86.34
Top 50%	$33,048	97.30
Bottom 50%	<$33,048	2.7
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

Chart obtained from National Taxpayers Union

If you go to the National Taxpayer Union link above you will see the charts all the way back to 1999.

The very same people that receive the tax breaks that Barack Obama has been harping on all week and in his radio address this morning are the people that pay an overwhelming majority of the income taxes across the country to fund Washington's wasteful spending habits.

These are the millionaires, billionaires, hedge fund managers, corporate jet owners, oil and gas companies etc.. and Barack Obama said something today to which I believe should be highlighted boldly.

"It would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them," Obama said. "Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else."

Emphasis mine.

Pulling in huge profits without our help!!! Obama's words.

These companies and people are not asking the government to give them a dime. They are earning their profits. Any business owner will tell you the reason they go into business is to succeed, to earn money, most want to expand and grow to earn more. Hire more. Sell more. All of which would help the economy.

The American dream.

Extending tax breaks to these people is not giving them money, it is taking less money from them that they have earned.

These are the folks that employ millions, provide jobs when the official unemployment is at 9.1 percent. These are the people that pour money into the economy by providing paychecks to those employees that go out and spend money on food, gas, clothing, school supplies for their kids and anything their families need.

These are the people that Barack Obama and the liberal left are declaring class warfare on.

Barack Obama and the liberal left would have you believe that letting them keep more of their own money, is actually giving them something and is adding to our nation's deficit.

An intellectually dishonest argument because the government is not writing them a check, is not paying them any money, is not bailing them out, is not spending one cent of taxpayer money on them.

If you have a bank account with $100 in it and you do not have to write a check out of it then no money is being taken out, there is no expenditure.

Barack Obama's statement that "we can’t afford" taxbreaks is another false argument.

When you go to the grocery store to get food for the week but you only have (XXX) amount of money in your pocket, you may not be able to afford extras because you do not have the money in your pocket to spend on them.

You do not look at the person next to you and say "hey, I don't money for cookies so give me a few bucks" and when he says no, you blame him for not being able to afford those cookies.

Or do you?

Expenditure, via Dictionary.com

1. the act of expending something, especially funds; disbursement; consumption.

Yet Obama and far left liberal Democrats (yes, redundant, I know) would like you to think that not taking more from people out of their pockets is some type of "expenditure."

It isn't.

What the far left liberals are doing is trying to feed on jealousy and envy and every negative emotion human nature has.

I will repeat Obama's words, the so-called rich and businesses owners are funding America without our help, are creating what jobs there are left without our help, are feeding us without our help and Obama wants to bite the hand that is feeding him and even worse, he wants you to do the same.

The reason Obama and the far left liberal Democrats are doing this is because they do not want to cut wasteful government spending, they do not want to live within a budget, they do not want to fix the problem of spending more money than they have.

Tell me, when Obama and the far left liberals are done eating the rich, finished their meal and are patting their nice fat bellies, who is going to fund America's wasteful spending habits then?

.

Earned On Merit: The Brits Figured It Out, When Will We?

"If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!" ---Hank Rearden, Atlas Shrugged

Just Deserts.

Individual Responsibility. Earned On Merit. Achievements by effort, talent or dedication.

Policy Exchange, Prime Minister of Britain David Cameron's "favorite idea outlet" has polled the question of fairness. The results show that the people of Britain have learned the answers to the questions America is still debating.

The quite unequivocal reply that was received (with breathtakingly enormous majorities in some forms) came as no surprise to this column. To most voters, fairness does not mean an equal distribution of resources and wealth, or even a redistribution of these things according to need. It means, as the report's title – "Just Deserts" – implies, that people get what they deserve. And what is deserved, the respondents made clear, refers to that which is achieved by effort, talent or dedication to duty: in other words, earned on merit.

The poll itself shows that four in five voters believe that those that receive welfare should actually work for the money they receive from the government.

The poll, however, shows that a startling 80 per cent of all voters thinks that people who have been out of work for 12 months should have to do community work before they get benefits - as long as they are physically and mentally capable of working.

Furthermore, half of all voters (50 per cent) think that someone on JSA should have to spend between three and eight hours a day searching for work in order to get welfare payments.

Tough sanctions - again going further than anything ever proposed by any British government - also win support, with 49 per cent saying that those on JSA who refuse job offers or interviews should lose half their benefit.

Some 21 per cent say they should lose it all.

With the news reports that the Brits have finally figured the error of the class warfare game, it is only fitting and perhaps could be called ironic that the battle between classes is also being reported and still being fought here in America between conservative and liberal pundits.

We see Arthur C. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute, explaining why the war against the rich is completely unfair and Yglesias, a liberal, trying to argue that the rich being penalized for being rich, should be taxed even more than they already are (which is higher than anyone else) is excused with the justification that it would "improve overall human welfare."

Most important, if we reject the ideals of opportunity and meritocratic fairness, we will end up with a system where outcomes are simply based on luck or political power — it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a 2005 study published in the American Economic Review, economists at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studied 29 countries and showed that a belief in luck over merit was strongly linked to the level of taxation and spending on social programs. Furthermore, they showed that the more citizens believed in a merit-based system, the more their public policies produced such a system.

In contrast, when populations believed that outcomes are a product of luck, birth, connections, or corruption, the people demanded more distortions to the free-enterprise system and ended up with a system that only affirmed their anxieties.

When politicians argue that, for the sake of fairness, we must raise taxes on the entrepreneurial class — and make those “millionaires and billionaires” bring us a few state-subsidized beers on the beach — they are unwittingly undermining the possibility of achieving the opportunity society they regret not having.

We are not a perfect opportunity society in the United States. But if we want to approach that ideal, we must define fairness as meritocracy, embrace a system that rewards merit, and work tirelessly for true equal opportunity. The system that makes this possible, of course, is free enterprise. When I work harder or longer hours in the free-enterprise system, I am generally paid more than if I work less in the same job. Investments in my education translate into market rewards. Clever ideas usually garner more rewards than bad ones, as judged not by a politburo, but by citizens in the marketplace.

The Brits are finally understanding that production, merit, achievements by effort, talent or dedication are what keeps the economy growing, and thriving and handouts to those not willing to work for the money they need to live are draining the economy.

When will America learn the same lesson?

My attitude on "Common good" and punishing the rich, goes back to well before I started this blog in 2006 and I stand by those statements today.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it. "--Francisco d’Anconia from Atlas Shrugged

.

Kevin Eder's Challenge To Liberals: Explain Your Numbers

Kevin Eder over at The Right Sphere has issued a challenge to Liberals, it is an interesting challenge and one I doubt any Liberal will take him up on.

Here are the facts: the largest amount of revenue the federal government has ever brought in during one fiscal year was $2.7 trillion in FY 2008 – under the dreaded George W. Bush and his ‘tax cuts for the rich.’ Even if the government were to raise this much revenue in FY 2011, we would still be over $1 trillion short of what Obama wants to spend this year.

My challenge to liberals is simple: Can you please explain to me how raising taxes on ‘the rich’ is going to close this gap? The government is only going to collect $2.2 trillion dollars in FY 2011, and the CBO’s best estimates show that even if the Bush tax rates had expired at the end of last year, the government would have brought in an additional $60 billion per year. That leaves us at $2.26 trillion for FY 2011 – still over $1.5 trillion less than what we’re scheduled to spend.

That is a question I would love to see the Tax-n-Spend Democratic so-called progressive portion of this country attempt to answer without changing the subject, making excuses or distracting in any way.

Just a straight answer. A clear explanation.

.

Must Read- Over Taxing The Rich Makes Them Want To Work Less

A must read article from someone that would be hit if the Bush Tax cuts expire and how it would make him work less therefore contribute less.

Teaser:

HERE’S the bottom line: Without any taxes, accepting that editor’s assignment would have yielded my children an extra $10,000. With taxes, it yields only $1,000. In effect, once the entire tax system is taken into account, my family’s marginal tax rate is about 90 percent. Is it any wonder that I turn down most of the money-making opportunities I am offered?

By contrast, without the tax increases advocated by the Obama administration, the numbers would look quite different. I would face a lower income tax rate, a lower Medicare tax rate, and no deduction phaseout or estate tax. Taking that writing assignment would yield my kids about $2,000. I would have twice the incentive to keep working.

Read the entire piece.

.

Poll: 55 To 40 Percent Say Extend ALL Tax Cuts

CNBC:

Fifty-five percent think increasing taxes on any Americans will slow the economy and kill jobs. On the other hand, 40 percent believe those tax cuts should be cancelled for higher-income Americans.

Only 14 percent of those surveyed believe that the government’s policies dealing with the recession are helping them, while 56 percent say the policies are aiding banks.

A clear majority of Americans, 55 percent, believe that the president’s economic plans have made things worse, running up the deficit without ending the recession or creating new jobs.

What was that refrain that Democrats kept screaming at Bush? Oh yeah.... change course!!

But remember, Barack Obama disagrees with the majority and thinks the country is on the right track!!!

.

Outgoing Obama Admin Economist Admits Stimulus Failed

Dana Milbank describes lunch at the National Press Club where Christina Romer, chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers was giving a farewell speech and the news, while not surprising to some, was dismal.

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn't understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn't have much of an idea about how to fix things.

What she did have was a binder full of scary descriptions and warnings, offered with a perma-smile and singsong delivery: "Terrible recession. . . . Incredibly searing. . . . Dramatically below trend. . . . Suffering terribly. . . . Risk of making high unemployment permanent. . . . Economic nightmare."

Anybody want dessert?

One key portion of Milbank's article caught my eye:

....When she and her colleagues began work, she acknowledged, they did not realize "how quickly and strongly the financial crisis would affect the economy." They "failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be."

Even now, Romer said, mystery persists. "To this day, economists don't fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would." Her defense was that "almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reaction."

Not true, all analysts were not surprised, just the ones in the Obama administration were surprised that massive borrowing and spending on the part of the government, passing trillion dollar initiatives, threatening to raise taxes on those producing and employing, would cause such a "violent reaction."

Threaten their money, they will stop spending it. Threaten to massively tax their businesses and they will stop hiring and producing. Spend money you do not have to spend and they will stop investing.

That is not a violent reaction, that is a response to the Obama administration and the Democrat's policies.

That miscalculation, in turn, led to her miscalculation that the stimulus package would be enough to keep the unemployment rate from exceeding 8 percent. Without the policy, she had predicted, unemployment would soar to 9.5 percent. The plan passed, and unemployment went to 10 percent.

Hell of a miscalculation. Now she calculates that more spending is needed?

She is not the only one that needs to go. Obama's whole economic team has failed and now they want to throw more money at the problem instead of.. what was that term they constantly used about George Bush?...oh yessssssss..... instead of changing course.

Stop the spending, extend any and all tax cuts, stop with the punish the rich mentality, which will in turn punish businesses, and perhaps they will start producing at level again, perhaps they will start hiring, perhaps they will start spending their money to stimulate the economy.

Newsflash:





[Update] Must Read- Summer of Economic Discontent.

.