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.

.

Poll: Majority Sides With Republicans On Debt Ceiling Debate

A plurality of Americans do not want their elected Representatives to vote for a debt ceiling increase by 42 to 22 percent and a majority of Americans are more concerned with raising the debt limit without spending cuts attached than they are with a major economic crisis if the ceiling is not raised by a 51 to 32 percent margin, according to Gallup's latest polling.

The bottom line as explained by Gallup:

Despite intense lobbying of Congress by President Obama, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and others in the administration about the economic urgency for raising the nation's debt limit, fewer than one in four Americans favor the general idea of raising it. Also, Americans are significantly more concerned about the budgetary risk of giving the government a new license to spend than they are about the potential economic consequences that would result from not raising the debt limit. Both of these findings put Americans more on congressional Republicans' side of the debate than Obama's -- at least in terms of political leverage as the two sides negotiate a deal. Nevertheless, Americans place Obama and the Republicans in Congress at parity in their preferences for whom they trust more to handle the federal budget deficit and debt ceiling, similar to the close division in U.S. partisanship, more generally.

The very public battle has had each side of the debate bringing their arguments straight to voters, using media and social media sites to present their case and respondents to the polling seem to be more in agreement with the Republicans than with the administration and liberal arguments.

The impasse has come as Republicans insist on spending cuts or reductions to equal, at least, the amount the Obama administration is asking for as an increase to the debt ceiling and Obama and Democrats insisting on raising taxes which the GOP has consistently made clear is a non-starter and will not pass the House of Representatives.

The new messaging campaign from Obama, as of yesterday, was to threaten social security by claiming that if the impasse is not overcome then elderly will not receive their social security checks come August 3, 2011.

For Obama, when all else fails, terrorize the elderly.

Nice.

[Update] Another Gallup poll finds that the majority of Americans (53%) that are watching the debt debate very closely want their member of congress to vote against it.

.

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.

.

Video- Obama 2009: 'You don’t raise taxes in a recession'

While we see news that Barack Obama wants to add a $1 trillion tax increase into negotiations with Republicans over a debt ceiling increase where Republicans demand spending cuts/reductions equal to, at least, the amount Obama wants to increase the debt ceiling, we flash back to August 2009, where Obama tells NBC's Chuck Todd "You don’t raise taxes in a recession."

Obama's answer to Todd was mentioned by The Weekly Standard recently, and it didn't take much hunting to find the video of that interview so you can see Obama say it himself to understand how Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth.

Video below- The question about taxes is posed at the 5:20 minute mark (just use the video scroll bar to go directly to that question and answer):

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Text:

Question from Scott Ferguson via Chuck Todd to Obama: "Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy."

Obama's answer: "First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans.

Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”

Not only did Obama make the very point Republicans are making now that he is arguing against, but Obama also assures Todd that the taxes increases that he was proposing "wouldn't kick in until after the recession is over".

Hot Air reminds people that not only is the country still suffering badly with the economy but what has been done to the economy by Obama hasn't made the situation any better.

A reminder of House Speaker John Boehner's statement this weekend:

"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."

According to another statement sent to USA Today, after meetings conducted after the first statement was issued, Boehner still believes the original smaller deal of cuts to equal the amount of the debt ceiling increase without raising taxes, is still the most viable option:

"The Speaker told the group that he believes a package based on the work of the Biden group is the most viable option at this time for moving forward.

The Speaker restated the fundamental principles that must be met for any increase in the debt limit: spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the amount of the increase, restraints on future spending, and no tax hikes.

The President agreed with the Speaker that their previous talks did not produce any agreement. The group agreed to continue talks in the coming week."

Stick to the smaller deal GOP and let the voters decide in the 2012 elections how they want to proceed from there.

If they remove Barack Obama from the White House, the voters will be speaking loud and clear that they do not want taxes raised but instead want government to get control of themselves and stop spending more money than they have.

If voters do not vote to replace Obama but reelect him instead, they will get exactly what they deserve.

.

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?

.

Democrats And Taxes: Welcome Back To The 1970's If Dems Could Have Their Way

If Democrats have their way, which they won't as long as Republicans hold the House of Representatives, but if they did have their way, the impact of their proposed tax policies would increase taxes to 62 percent.

Imagine that, 62 percent of what you make going to the government.

Here is the breakdown of the calculations:

If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Here's the math behind that depressing calculation. Today's top federal income tax rate is 35%. Almost all Democrats in Washington want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than $250,000 and phase out certain deductions, so the effective income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%. The 3% millionaire surtax raises that rate to 44.5%.

But payroll taxes, which are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be included in the equation. So we have to add about 2.5 percentage points for the payroll tax for Medicare (employee and employer share after business deductions), which was applied to all income without a ceiling in 1993 as part of the Clinton tax hike. I am including in this analysis the employer share of all payroll taxes because it is a direct tax on a worker's salary and most economists agree that though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it is ultimately borne by the employee. That brings the tax rate to 47%.

Then last year, as part of the down payment for ObamaCare, Congress snuck in an extra 0.9% Medicare surtax on "high-income earners," meaning any individual earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000. This brings the total tax rate to 47.9%.

But that's not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.

Then we have to factor in state income taxes, which on average add after the deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we are at a tax rate of close to 62%.

Democrats have repeatedly stated they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. But after all these taxes on the "rich," we're headed back to the taxes that prevailed under Jimmy Carter, when the highest tax rate was 70%.

There is much more, so go read the rest.

.

Even Stealing 100% From The Super Rich Won't Pay Off The Deficit

Wall Street Journal takes Obama's ridiculous claims even further and shows what would happen even if the government stole 100 percent of the taxable income from "millionaires and billionaires".

Consider the Internal Revenue Service's income tax statistics for 2008, the latest year for which data are available. The top 1% of taxpayers—those with salaries, dividends and capital gains roughly above about $380,000—paid 38% of taxes. But assume that tax policy confiscated all the taxable income of all the "millionaires and billionaires" Mr. Obama singled out. That yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record.

Ok, so confiscating all taxable income from the super rich won't make a dent, therefore WSJ takes it a step further:

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That's five times Mr. Obama's 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion. And remember, the top 10% already pay 69% of all total income taxes, while the top 5% pay more than all of the other 95%.

We recognize that 2008 was a bad year for the economy and thus for tax receipts, as payments by the rich fell along with their income. So let's perform the same exercise in 2005, a boom year and among the best ever for federal revenue. (Ahem, 2005 comes after the Bush tax cuts that Mr. Obama holds responsible for all the world's problems.)

In 2005 the top 5% earned over $145,000. If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren't nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama's entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.

The tax-n-spend crews math simply doesn't add up and anyone that can add one plus one and comes out with two, knows it, so Obama has to "pretend" he wants to milk the rich (after all that is so popular with his far left base) but in reality he actually starts milking the people he swore he wouldn't raise taxes on....

The middle class.

This is politically risky, however, so Mr. Obama's game has always been to pretend not to increase taxes for middle class voters while looking for sneaky ways to do it. His first budget in 2009 included a "climate revenues" section from the indirect carbon tax of cap and trade, which of course would be passed down to all consumers. Such Democratic luminaries as Nancy Pelosi have often chattered about a European-style value-added tax, or VAT, which from a liberal perspective has the virtue of applying to every level of production or service and therefore is largely hidden from the people who pay it.

Read the whole thing, then ask yourself.. "How stupid does Barack Obama and the far left think you are?"

Actions speak louder than words and their actions scream the answer out, very loudly.

.

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.

.

Who Are They Gonna Tax When The Rich Fall Or Move Or Simply Quit?

"....I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me.

This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. 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!" --- Atlas Shrugged

Taxing the rich more and more and more then even more seems to be the mantra of the left.. the deficit problems will be solved, they say, if you just make the rich pay more than they already are.

They say this while the top 50 percent of income earners already pay over 95 percent of all income taxes. They say this while 43 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. They say that tax cuts for the rich are "giving" the rich more money, are "handouts" to the rich, neglecting the very fact that their money already belongs to the income earner and by not raising taxes they are simply stealing less from them.

They say this even though studies have found that the more Washington raises taxes, the more politicians spend and the deficit never gets paid down.

We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.

We also looked at different time periods (e.g., 1947-2009 vs. 1959-2009), different financial data (fiscal year federal budget data, as well as calendar year National Income and Product Account data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis), different lag structures (e.g., relating taxes one year to spending change the following year to allow for the time it takes bureaucracies to spend money), different control variables, etc. The alternative models produce different estimates of the tax-spend relationship—between $1.05 and $1.81. But no matter how we configured the data and no matter what variables we examined, higher tax collections never resulted in less spending.

Washington spends more than they take in, but worse yet, when they raise taxes they don't bother using the additional income to pay off our $14 trillion debt, in fact, they spend even more than they raised in revenues by raising taxes in the first place, the whole time claiming the reason for doing it is to help with our debt.

Let us put all that aside though for a minute and go over the headline question and the thought processes behind the asking of said question.

Who Are You Gonna Tax When The Rich Fall Or Move Or Simply Quit?

The inevitable argument from the far left is "the rich won't fall" or "they won't move" or "they won't quit" but I have found that Google search is a wonderful tool, the problem is so many hits come up, so many tidbits of information that I am worried my browser will crash if I open any more, so I will list examples, link, close the tab then rinse and repeat.

Here we go.

When the Rich Fall: Argument from far left liberals is that the rich keep getting richer. Not true.

NRO quotes Treasury data:

***Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within ten years.

***About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within ten years.

***Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 — the top 1/100 of one percent — only 25 percent remained in the group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over the study period.

**The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).

***Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period: Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation; real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups.

There’s a good deal of socioeconomic mobility in the United States — more than you’d think. Our dear, dear friends at the IRS keep track of actual households (boy, do they ever!), and sometimes the Treasury publishes data about what has happened to them. For instance, among those who in 1996 were in the very highest income group isolated for study — the top 0.01 percent — 75 percent were in a lower income group by 2005. The median real income of super-rich households went down, not up. The rich got poorer. Among actual households, income grew proportionally more for those who started off in the low-income groups than those that began in high-income groups.

Now let's use a real time examples of how states "assume" revenue they do not have yet, then are surprised and devastated when the rich fall.

California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois:

Nearly half of California's income taxes before the recession came from the top 1% of earners: households that took in more than $490,000 a year. High earners, it turns out, have especially volatile incomes—their earnings fell by more than twice as much as the rest of the population's during the recession. When they crashed, they took California's finances down with them.

Mr. Williams, a former economic forecaster for the state, spent more than a decade warning state leaders about California's over-dependence on the rich. "We created a revenue cliff," he said. "We built a large part of our government on the state's most unstable income group."

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois—states that are the most heavily reliant on the taxes of the wealthy—are now among those with the biggest budget holes. A large population of rich residents was a blessing during the boom, showering states with billions in tax revenue. But it became a curse as their incomes collapsed with financial markets.

So, yes, the rich do fall and fall hard and when they do, states and countries that make themselves totally dependent on assumed future revenue from those very people, fall fast and hard right along side of them.

Then of course in the eyes of the tax and spend crew, it is not the fault of the states that assumed the rich couldn't fall, it is not the fault of the country that assumed the rich couldn't fail, it is not the fault of the tax and spend portion of our society that encouraged that line of thinking and fought to become totally dependent on the rich, no, somehow the fault for the fall in the their eyes is on the rich themselves.

When the Rich Move: Far left liberal argument "let them go!!! Good riddance" (My question- umm.. then who are you going to tax?)

We see stories of the rich moving away from high tax states into states that do not steal all their income in order to become overly dependent on those rich to support the whole state.

Example: Johnson family who runs Fidelity said goodbye to Massachusetts and helllloooooooooooo New Hampshire.

Why? So glad you asked.

New Hampshire doesn’t tax many forms of income from trusts.

New Jersey lost more than $70 billion in wealth between 2004 and 2008 as affluent residents moved elsewhere.

Findings from the Boston College report show that about 302,780 households left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008, only slightly lower than the 323,350 households that moved into the state. However, the average net worth of the departing households was about 70 percent higher, at $618,330.

Those who left were also more likely to be older and more educated, with jobs as entrepreneurs or in the finance and professional industries, the study found. Those replacing them tended to hold management or support jobs in the manufacturing industry. The study analyzed data from three main sources: The Federal Reserve’s Survey on Consumer Finances, the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service.

Maryland lost wealth also by creating a special tax on rich people that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead, the state lost $257 million.

RCP:

New York billionaire Tom Golisano isn't stupid, either. With $3,000 and one employee, he started a business that processes paychecks for companies. He created 13,000 jobs.

Then New York state hiked the income tax on millionaires.

"It was the straw that broke the camel's back," he says. "Not that I like to throw the number around, but my personal income tax last year would've been $13,800 a day. Would you like to write a check for $13,800 a day to a state government, as opposed to moving to another state where there's no state income tax or very low state income tax?

He established residence in Florida, which has no personal income tax.

That is on a state level, what happens when when it becomes a "leave the country" problem instead of a leave the state problem?

Wealthy people have been quitting their American citizenship for tax reasons for years. Tennessee-born mutual fund investor John Templeton did it in 1968. He died in 2008 in the Bahamas at the age of 95. John Dorrance III, grandson of the founder of Campbell Soup (CPB), quit being an American, as did members of the Getty Family. Companies including Tyco (TYC) and Transocean (RIG) have done the same thing. Some worry whether the newest crackdown will encourage more taxpayers to quit the U.S.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/a9qt0o

When The Rich Quit or lose incentive, or slow down.

I read something at the end of last year but forgot who wrote it so it took me forever to find it again but finally I did. A firsthand account of how raising taxes on those that make more money than most, encourages them to work less.

In other words, taking his incentive away makes him offer less.

And I acknowledge that my motives in taking on extra work are partly mercenary. I don’t want to move to a bigger house or buy that Ferrari, but I hope to put some money aside for my three children. They will never lead lives of leisure, but I hope they won’t have to struggle to find down payments to buy their own homes or to send their kids to college.

Suppose that some editor offered me $1,000 to write an article. If there were no taxes of any kind, this $1,000 of income would translate into $1,000 in extra saving. If I invested it in the stock of a company that earned, say, 8 percent a year on its capital, then 30 years from now, when I pass on, my children would inherit about $10,000. That is simply the miracle of compounding.

Now let’s put taxes into the calculus. First, assuming that the Bush tax cuts expire, I would pay 39.6 percent in federal income taxes on that extra income. Beyond that, the phaseout of deductions adds 1.2 percentage points to my effective marginal tax rate. I also pay Medicare tax, which the recent health care bill is raising to 3.8 percent, starting in 2013. And in Massachusetts, I pay 5.3 percent in state income taxes, part of which I get back as a federal deduction. Putting all those taxes together, that $1,000 of pretax income becomes only $523 of saving.

And that saving no longer earns 8 percent. First, the corporation in which I have invested pays a 35 percent corporate tax on its earnings. So I get only 5.2 percent in dividends and capital gains. Then, on that income, I pay taxes at the federal and state level. As a result, I earn about 4 percent after taxes, and the $523 in saving grows to $1,700 after 30 years.

Then, when my children inherit the money, the estate tax will kick in. The marginal estate tax rate is scheduled to go as high as 55 percent next year, but Congress may reduce it a bit. Most likely, when that $1,700 enters my estate, my kids will get, at most, $1,000 of it.

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.

Now you might not care if I supply less of my services to the marketplace — although, because you are reading this article, you are one of my customers. But I bet there are some high-income taxpayers whose services you enjoy.

Maybe you are looking forward to a particular actor’s next movie or a particular novelist’s next book. Perhaps you wish that your favorite singer would have a concert near where you live. Or, someday, you may need treatment from a highly trained surgeon, or your child may need braces from the local orthodontist. Like me, these individuals respond to incentives. (Indeed, some studies report that high-income taxpayers are particularly responsive to taxes.) As they face higher tax rates, their services will be in shorter supply.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether and how much the government should redistribute income. And, to be sure, the looming budget deficits require hard choices about spending and taxes. But don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that when the government taxes the rich, only the rich bear the burden.

Read the entire thing over at NYT's Economy section.

Or the rich could simply choose to say the hell with everyone and simply close up shop, fire the millions they employ, take their money and leave and then who will those loony leftists tell their Democratic representatives to tax?

IMBECILES.

.

Michael Barone's Important Observation: Census Shows Growth Stronger Where Taxes Are Lower

Yesterday's news from the census showed that many so-called red states grew at a rate which will cause a reapportionment of House seats that favors Republicans.

The census determines the population of states and House seats (and electoral votes) are apportioned by the population of the state.

As shown yesterday after the census report was released, some states gained seats in the House due to the 2010 census and other states lost seats.

States gaining Congressional seats: Arizona (1), Florida (2), Georgia (1), Nevada (1), South Carolina (1), Texas (4), Utah (1), Washington (1).

States losing Congressional seats: Illinois (1), Iowa (1), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), New Jersey (1), New York (2), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1).

That was the big news but lost in the firestorm of reporting was an observation made by Michael Barone:

First, the great engine of growth in America is not the Northeast Megalopolis, which was growing faster than average in the mid-20th century, or California, which grew lustily in the succeeding half-century. It is Texas.

Its population grew 21 percent in the past decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

Texas' diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.

There's a similar lesson in the fact that Florida gains two seats in the reapportionment and New York loses two.

This leads to a second point, which is that growth tends to be stronger where taxes are lower. Seven of the nine states that do not levy an income tax grew faster than the national average. The other two, South Dakota and New Hampshire, had the fastest growth in their regions, the Midwest and New England.

Altogether, 35 percent of the nation's total population growth occurred in these nine non-taxing states, which accounted for just 19 percent of total population at the beginning of the decade.

The census report can be found here, as well as the embed code for the handy interactive map above.

The spin from the left is that many of the states seeing the highest growth shows an influx of minorities which favor Democrats, therefore the census report and the reapportionment isn't all bad news.

The flip side of the coin there, which the left avoids thinking about is that minorities like high taxes about as much as everyone else... not at all.

A solid majority of voters (67%) prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a larger, more active government with more services and higher taxes. Just one-in-four (25%) prefer the larger, more active government, a sentiment that has changed little since polling on the question began.

When it comes down to money in their pockets versus money the state takes from their pockets, exactly which party is well known for wanting lower taxes and less government services or programs and which party is well known for consistently raising taxes to pay for more government services or programs?

The answer to that question should concern every far left Democrat that is trying to see a silver lining in yesterday's census report.

.

Obama Signs Tax Deal Into Law- Democratic Leaders Skip Signing Ceremony

The tax deal Barack Obama negotiated with Congressional Republicans, opposed by liberals across the media and blogosphere passed the Senate in one of the rare bipartisan votes with 81 to 19, then passed the House of Representatives after liberals tried and failed to change the deal, was signed into law by Barack Obama today.

Missing from the signing ceremony were top Democratic leaders, the Speaker of the House (Until January when John Boehner is expected to take the gavel), second in command for the House, Steny Hoyer and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid.

President Barack Obama celebrated the spirit of compromise Friday as he signed a controversial $858 billion tax cut and unemployment insurance extension into law — but warned that bipartisan comity could be fleeting.

The bill, the result of a deal Obama cut with Senate Republicans over the objections of many Democrats, was a major victory for a White House that spent much of the past two years battling a unified GOP on the stimulus and health care reform.

"We are here with some good news for the American people this holiday season," Obama told about 150 people, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), gathered in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

Noticeably absent were Speaker-to-be John Boehner (R-Ohio), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who were all cut out of initial negotiations between Obama’s staff and McConnell.

The first truly bipartisan piece of legislation, which captured support from both sides of the aisle while neither got all they wanted and both gave up some of what they wanted and top Democratic leaders made themselves even more irrelevant with their noticeable public absence.

.

Obama And Republicans' Tax Deal Passes The House- Final Vote 277-148

Despite all the howling and temper tantrums when the tax deal was first reached by Barack Obama and Congressional Republicans, after passing the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support with a vote of 81-19, the House of Representatives passed the tax deal, as is, with a vote of 277 to 148. (Roll Call here)

In a rush of late night activity, liberal Democrats first held a show vote that was certain to fail, attempting to change the estate tax provision in the deal negotiated between Republicans and Obama, to raise the tax rate from 35 percent to 45 percent and lower the exemption rate from $5 million to 3.5 million. That failed with a vote of 233-194 against.

Obama is expected to sign the deal into law as soon as today, Friday.

Headlines on this news vary, but the New York Times takes the cake, so to speak, on misrepresenting the news once again by titling their piece "Congress Sends $801 Billion Tax Cut Bill to Obama"

This isn't a $801 billion tax cut bill, taxes were due to rise at the end of this year, the deal simply extends current tax rates for all at the same rate it has been for years. So taxes were not raised, that does not mean anything was "cut."

In looking around the blogosphere at reactions, I see McQ states it better than I would have:

Keeping that rate doesn’t "cost" the government one red cent, because they never had the money to begin with. Pretending that somehow anticipated revenue from an increase in taxes is somehow a "cost" is a perversion of the English language as well as a misuse of an economic term.

Quit it.

Thank you.

~McQ

His point was one I was trying to make yesterday about the estate tax and how only in the twisted minds of liberals could letting people keep more of their own money be considered a "cost" or could they claim it "added" to our debt.

Again, I refer to McQ, the money was never the governments to begin with so letting heirs keep 65 percent of money and or estates left to them by someone who died is not costing the government a red cent and is not some type of "gift" to the rich.

Other headline major news:

In the Senate last night, the newly unveiled $1.1 trillion omnibus bill, which had multiple appropriations bills rolled into one monstrosity of a bill, went down in flames after Republicans filibustered and stood strong again allowing a largely unread, 1,924 pages omnibus bill, loaded with over 6,000 earmarks totaling $8 billion, and Harry Reid could not overcome the filibuster so he pulled the bill from the floor.

The Senate will now work to pass a Continuing Resolution which will fund government until February when the new sessions of Congress start. The House of Representatives will then be controlled by the GOP and the Senate will still be controlled by Democrats but with a much smaller margin that they have enjoyed for the last two years.

Next up in the lame duck session of the Senate, Reid files for cloture on DADT repeal and DREAM Act. (Click DREAM Act link for numbers to call to stop it from passing)

Related, must read piece in the Washington Examiner from Byron York.

Dems are earmark junkies but GOP goes straight

.

Only A Liberal Would Claim That Letting People Keep THEIR Money Is A 'Gift'

Reading an article from The Hill I am once again struck by the twisted thinking that goes on in Liberal Democrat's minds.

This is about the estate tax aka death tax where our government claims the right to take (Insert percentage)of a person's inheritance after someone dies and leaves their fortune to that person if that fortune is more than (Insert amount).

IRS's explanation:

The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death (Refer to Form 706 (PDF)). The fair market value of these items is used, not necessarily what you paid for them or what their values were when you acquired them. The total of all of these items is your "Gross Estate." The includible property may consist of cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, annuities, business interests and other assets.

In the tax deal that Obama negotiated with congressional Republicans, there was a deal reached tax 35 percent of any estate left to heirs that equaled more than $5 million. (The 35 percent would be taxed on anything over the $5 million)

House Democrats and the whole liberal blogosphere went nuts over that provision because they feel the government should take 45 percent for all estates worth more than $3.5 million. (The 45 percent would be taxed on anything over the $3.5 million)

There is the background and here is what I read in The Hill today:

Democratic leaders have assailed the GOP-favored estate tax provision as a needless gift to the wealthy, calling it the most egregious part of the Obama proposal. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the House Democrats’ chief negotiator on the tax deal, said Wednesday the lower estate tax rate would add $23 billion to the deficit while benefiting just 6,600 American families.

There is so much wrong with that paragraph on so many levels I almost do not know where to start.

So, I will start with the phrase "needless gift."

Only in the twisted logic of a liberal is letting people keep their own money, left to them by a family member or friend, considered a "gift."

So, if you head over to your neighbors house and steal only 35 percent of their property instead of taking 45 percent of their property you are giving them a gift by oh so generously allowing them to keep 65 percent of their own property?

WTF?

Then we move on to Van Hollen''s other statement where he claims, outright, that by not stealing another 10 percent of someones inheritance it is adding to our deficit?

No no no no... wrong.

That isn't their money to begin with, it belongs to someone else, it isn't adding to anything. It is simply not allowing Peter to steal more from Paul to pay his bills.

What the hell is wrong with these people where not stealing as much as you could steal is considered a gift and stealing less than you could steal is considered adding debt?

That is freaking twisted.

Newsflash- When you spend money, you are adding to your debt. When you borrow money, you are adding to the debt.

When you take money that doesn't belong to you to pay for those debts, you are a thief.

(Changes were made to this post)

Senate Passes Bipartisan Tax Deal 81-19

The Senate just passed the tax deal negotiated by Barack Obama and Republican congressional members in an 81 to 19 vote for the measure. (Roll call will be found here in approximately an hour)

Next stop the House of Representatives where Democratic leadership has indicated they will try to change the deal but which projections predict will pass basically as is after Democrats put on a "show" to save face and to appease their far left liberal base that has been howling over the deal because of the inclusion of the estate tax deal which would set the tax at 35 percent and increase the exemption to $5 million.

House Democratic efforts to block President Obama’s tax bill have dwindled into a battle to save face as they come to the realization they will have little opportunity to rework the bipartisan compromise.

Party leaders were debating on Tuesday whether to bring up amendments to the bill for a vote even as Democrats acknowledged the overwhelming Senate support for the tax deal created an “urgency” to get legislation to the president’s desk.

The House is not expected to take the issue up until tomorrow.

More to come as reactions come out.

[Update] Now being reported by The Hill, Bloomberg, NPR, NYT.

[Update #2] Those that voted against it listed below:

NAYs ---19

Bingaman (D-NM)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Merkley (D-OR)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)

.

Obama And Republicans Need To Tell House Dems: Pass The Deal, As Is, Or We Will In January

The tax deal Obama negotiated directly with Congressional Republicans after becoming dispirited at the lack of cooperation he was getting from Congressional Democrats has the overwhelming support from a majority of Americans and has passed it's first test vote (for cloture) in the Senate with an 83-15 vote.

Yet House Democrats are still trying to change the deal and it is time for Barack Obama, the Senate, and Congressional Republicans to tell the Pelosi and House Democrats "enough is enough, pass the deal, as is, or it will be passed in January when the GOP takes control of the House of Representatives."

Period.

House Democrats are angry they lost power and at the end of the year will no longer control the House, no longer be able to control the House agenda so they are attempting to make themselves feel relevant again in a power play they have no hope of winning. They should not be allowed to put on their little show at the expense of American's piece of mind.

It is a bipartisan deal negotiated by the leader of their party, Barack Obama, leaders of the Republican party and it is has been given the blessing of the majority of Americas and cloture on the tax deal passed the Senate with the most bipartisan support we have seen on almost anything controversial for over two years.

House Democrats need to either get on board or get out of the way because all they are doing at this point is proving to the American people that the midterm elections, the "shellacking" the Democrats took, was justified and it is this type of unreasonable posturing by House Democrats that caused them to lose control of the House in the first place.

[Update PS] I do not like many of the "sweeteners" that were added, I do not like many of the original parts of the deal Obama and Republicans negotiated, but as I tell the liberal left constantly, when the majority of Americans speak up, those who are in the way need to get out of the way, including me and other conservatives.

Had this issue not been put off until the very last minute, then perhaps the debate and negotiations could have gone differently, but it was put off, it is the last minute, and different polls from separate individual organizations show the majority of Americans favor this deal, so just pass the damn thing and quite howling over it.

A little note to my conservative brethren- When Obamacare showed the majority of Americans opposed to the law and liberals who controlled the House, Senate and White House ignored the will of American voters, passed it and signed it into law, look what happened on November 2, 2010.

Voters remembered.

Many of us howled then about house Democrats ignoring the majority, we said Obamacare should not be passed when the majority was so opposed to it and Democrats did it anyway.

Well, the shoe is now on the other foot and unless you are hypocrites, you have to maintain that the majority should be listened to whether you agree with all aspects of the deal or not.

.