• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Obama Aims for the Money You Don't "Need"

    Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

    That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

    And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.

    If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

    To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

    How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

    But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.

    On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

    The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

    According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

    And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

    Quick Hits:

    • Italy, the world’s seventh-largest economy, is now on the brink of being engulfed in Europe’s debt crisis amid concerns over years of indebtedness, political infighting over budget cuts, and dropping investor confidence.
    • Fed chairman Ben Bernanke will testify before Congress today and tomorrow to answer questions on monetary policy and whether the Fed is doing too much—or too little—to boost the economy.
    • China’s economy slowed to 9.5 percent in the latest quarter amid government actions to curb the country’s 6.4 percent inflation rate.
    • Pakistan’s defense minister said the country might withdraw thousands of troops from the border areas following the U.S. decision to delay $800 million in aid. His statements contradicted the military’s statements from earlier in the day.
    • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R–KY) insufficient debt limit proposal cedes authority from Congress to the President. Read about it on Foundry.org.
    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    154 Responses to Morning Bell: Obama Aims for the Money You Don't "Need"

    1. Ted Garrison says:

      Atlas Shrugged should be required reading for graduation from H.S. – maybe then more people would understand what a disasterous approach Obama is leading us toward.

      • Michael A. Gabel says:

        Go ahead, Ted!

      • mmam5 says:

        Too right! Just finished it this week … so weird … reading these articles and the book at the same time, you forget the book was written 50 years ago.

      • J. Guidry says:

        absolutely, totally agree. What a roadmap of what not to do for the prosperity of a nation. Too bad the liberals can't read anything which makes sense, or understand it if they do.

      • Roger S. says:

        Add Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"!
        Practically every other word in every chapter points to or explicitly addresses and
        describes today's issues. — It was written or compiled from her essays in "The
        Objectivist" about forty years ago. Believe me, an astonishing read.
        Worth every minute of your time!

      • C. Glasl says:

        Who is John Galt?

    2. charleslabounty says:

      mmmmm …………. mmmmmm ………… mmmmmmmm !!!

    3. Robert says:

      And McConnell wants to give this guy a blank check, with the sole authority to increase our debt! If the republicans in Congress were a football team, the Carolina Panthers would beat them 80-0, in the first half, and then the refs would call the game. The repubs QB, John Boehner, would be sacked 48 times.

      • Nancy says:

        Blatantly unconstitutional. Congress holds the purse strings, not the executive branch. Although since when has Obama let the Constitution stand in his way?

      • Rosco1776 says:

        And cry afterwards! LOL!

        Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano 2012!

    4. Jane Horton-Leasman says:

      If BHO believes he can mess with Social Security and get away with it, he had better think again. Seniors have longer memories than elephants! What next, the government attacks the funding for private pensions? This is a DANGEROUS Administration, from the top, down.

      • Lew Richards says:

        Yes , you are so correct, Obama is very DANGEROUS to our American political system. He just does not have the background or experiences to appreciate our "American Heritage" , our Values.
        Obama is better suited to run a Third World country or to go back in time to Germany in the 1930's.
        His threat to cut off social securiy checks, Veterans and disabled income if he does not get his way on increasing taxes sounds Hitleresque to me.
        BEWARE AMERICA!! Everyday he becomes more aggressive against our long standing values!
        Can America survive the remaining one year and a half of his anti- American term?

      • Alex says:

        So you are advocating for more spending on entitlement programs?

      • Diane008 says:

        Instead of taking from Social Security (my RETIREMENT-not entitlement), why doesn't he just stop payment to himself, his cronies and Congress? They can easily afford to go with less income for a month or two. Take away Social Security and you will have more homeless and hungry and more on Welfare. How is that supposed to help the economic situation? He is already pushing to take taxpayers money to support LaRaza in their effort to sell homes to Hispanic immigrants and ILLEGALS. It's bad enough he threatened the wages of the military who are fighting in other countries to get what he wanted. Now he's putting the elderly and disabled on the table. Next step will be everyones IRA's and 401K's. He's a spoiled brat who will not give up until he gets what he wants….Waaah-poor baby.

    5. Gordon says:

      If Bam has money he doesn't need, he is free to contribute it to whatever cause he desires, as long as he keeps his bloody paws off my assets.

    6. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      I am reminded of an exchange between Jesus and the experts in the law. They scoffed at people doing work on the Sabbath. Jesus told them that the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath.

      In the same way, government was created for man not man for government. When government looks at we the people as servants of the state and our wealth and income as theirs first allowing us to keep a pittance, it has assumed a role antithetical to its founding.

      Let us change it before its too late.

      • elkomike says:

        Well Stated.

      • @OhRadar says:

        I like what you said._ Commander Obama and Mr. Jesus (RIP) have something in common: they both tried to resurrect their image in SECRET. What is so embarrassing about "we the people" that they deceived those who put them in such a position of power? When their behavior is not transparent, we end up with such legacies as the impeachment of Mr. Clinton. Our elected servants sometimes work on the Sabbath because their own image is more important than service to their Lord. Our politicians have assumed a role antithetical to our creation and continued evolution.

    7. Alex says:

      Rich people do invest money, yes. But at that level, a greater percentage of their investments are speculative and can warp the value of things, creating price bubbles that end in economic disaster. See: housing crisis that started this recession. It's no coincidence that when the bubble burst, the concentration of wealth in the top 1% was at its highest since 1929. On the other hand, middle and lower income people spend a greater proportion of their money on the goods and services they need to get by. This creates demand, which creates private revenues, which creates jobs. So you have two kinds of investment happening here: one in people who will spend money on intangible financial vehicles that warp prices, and another in people who will purchase real products. Both get the capital flowing – people spend the money – but one (real products) is a much safer investment. Not to mention the social justice dimension of depriving people of healthcare and hurting their quality of living, but that's another story.

      I suspect this comment will be received negatively, but before you hit the thumbs-down, ask yourself this: are you in the top tax bracket? If not, why are you fighting on behalf of the wealthy? Do you honestly believe that this will hurt the economy? All Obama is doing is advocating reverting the highest tax bracket to where it was during the Clinton Administration, which was an era of considerable economic growth.

      • Jim says:

        You must be joking. If you have money to invest, you should be able to do so on your own terms. It is not for the government to define where that money should go. First of all, it is not the government's money. Second, the gov't has shown time and time again that they are totally incompetent when it comes to making "investments."

        As far as defending "the rich," the issue is not whether I am part of the highest tax bracket (I am not), but whether I respect an individual's right to succeed. The government exists for our benefit, not the other way around.

      • Nancy says:

        The Clinton Administration experienced a greater level of growth only after being forced into economic reforms by the newly elected congress. I am not in the top bracket but maybe someday I'd like to be. I'd like to think that this is still a possibility but with the current administration and their cronies in the 2008 congress, they've made it harder and harder to start a new business and succeed at it. Why don't they ever talk about making government sacrifices or government union sacrifices? We've all paid into the system, we obey the laws of the land and raise our kids and go to our jobs, etc. Why do they act like it's all our fault and we have to pay to get them out of the mess they created? Taking money from one person to give it to another does not stimulate any damn thing at all except the growth of government which continues to grow and feed on us like a horrible cancer.

      • KC - NM says:

        Sure – if the rich have their tax percentage raised back up to Clinton era it will bring in some additional revenue, but many who are in the upper tax bracked (those in Congress for example) have many loop holes to by-pass the tax so they really do not pay that much to begin with. The real answer that you did not cover is the 50% of Americans who do not pay taxes. That is just as unfair to the middle class as the rich who could pay more. Flat tax is the answer – then everybody pays something with no exceptions!

      • Jon says:

        Why fight on their behalf? Because they are as entitled to the fruits of their labor as every other individual. A blanket policy to confiscate the money people do not "need" is a complete violation of personal property rights. What's next if we allow this to become national policy? Vacation homes so the feds can give them to the homeless? Personal property rights are at stake which make this an important issue for anybody that owns anything of value because once the federal government realizes they can take from one group on the basis of "fairness" they will never stop taking. Eventually, they will come to your door. Who will fight then?

        • Alex says:

          Hi Jon. I (like Obama) am actually in the highest tax bracket, so this is my door we are talking about, but never mind that. No one is talking about money that anyone needs or doesn't need (Obama only said "money [he] doesn't need" that in the context of his own situation and spending habits, not anyone else's). The US already has an income tax and welfare programs so it already is national policy to use tax revenues on the basis of "fairness." It has been since the New Deal.

      • Michael A. Gabel says:

        Taxing "the rich" is not a viable solution to the problem. In fact, it is not even a genuine attempt to solve the problem. It is a leftist tactic divert our attention from failed leftist policies and to to create class warfare.
        The dollars gained by raising tax rates would (a) not be enough to make a dent in the deficit or national debt (b) only embolden and empower the government to tax and spend more and (c) actually reduce tax revenue because it will further hurt economic growth.
        The two main reasons the economy was strong during Clinton's presidency are: (1) a Republican Congress that cut spending and the capital gains rate (2) the dot.com boom.
        Wake up. Empower the people, not the government.

      • Julie Chambers says:

        Alex,
        I won't thumbs down it but I will provide answers and ask some questions. I "fight on behalf of the wealthy" because they and their actions, not the beloved government, create jobs. Who knows, one day I may be in their ranks. What's "wealthy" anyway? The threshold will get lower and lower til $100K is considered that and rates are then confiscatory.

        As you seem to love the Clinton Admin and its tax brackets so much, why not go back to their spending levels also? Oooh, can't do that, can ya.

        • Alex says:

          Julie, thanks for your thoughtful response. Regarding the job creation argument, I don't think that works because this is income tax we are talking about. Personal income. It's not like people use their personal income to hire people and literally create jobs (unless they are REALLY rich). Yes, their spending on goods and services may create some jobs, but so would giving money to the middle class, who also spend on goods and services. In fact, basic economics dictates that the lower your income, the greater the proportion of your income you spend. So if job creation is the goal, doesn't it make sense to provide relief to the middle class? And yet they (along with the lower class) are the ones who will end up having to pay the price with cuts to social security and medicare.

      • @snowcloud79 says:

        What you are not realizing is that when they tax "the rich" EVERYONE gets hurt. Past experience has shown that it actually hurts those who can least afford it.

        Just once I'd like to hear those who are saying "tax the rich" explain just who exactly do they consider rich? And is that net or gross? They need to be specific when spouting their usual drivel.

        • Alex says:

          Highest tax bracket. I believe it is salary over $200k for individuals, $250k for joint filing.

      • mmam5 says:

        I am against tax increases, because knowing "O" it will not be JUST the super wealthy, it will be all of us. And the super wealthy will take their biz elsewhere, which will mean more jobs lost, which will then trickle down and hurt more middle/lower class.

        • Alex says:

          You really don't need to be concerned about that mmam5. Obama has never changed his tune on tax policy, always insisting that only those in the highest tax bracket would have their Bush tax cut rolled back to Clinton levels. He has specifically said he will not increase anyone else's taxes. You also shouldn't worry about the "super wealthy" leaving the country over a 3% income tax increase – that is irrationally unrealistic.

      • North Carolina says:

        Best Post on This Page!! Well Done, Alex

      • P Jones says:

        Any money taken out of the private sector is lost to the opportunity of additional wealth creation.
        And, what is the great need for ever-increasing revenues to the government, when it is clear that the government wastes most of what it gets. Do you really think that government spending increases the incentive to be productive, for anyone?

      • AE thoughts says:

        Quote: "Rich people do invest money, yes. But at that level, a greater percentage of their investments are speculative and can warp the value of things, creating price bubbles that end in economic disaster. See: housing crisis that started this recession."

        Whoa! You have the power to know what every single 'rich person' does with their money? holy mind reading madness! You must be a Billionaire yourself with such insight and knowledge!

        To play along…. These investments that are made… they do not by any chance… say… FUND the employment of people to manage those investments? Say… bank employees, financial companies and the like? Thereby directly funding private jobs/salaries?

        So what you are telling us is that 'rich people' are not the ones buying say… a new mercedes (built by companies that employ metalworkers, autoworkers, etc…) , a new boat (which are made by companies that employ ship builders, metalworkers, interior designers etc…) No… of course not… those boats, cars, larger homes, office buildings all are paid for by people earning $50K a month? Are you kidding me?

        Rich folks didn't 'force' people to sign their names to pieces of paper stating I owe x amount of money so that I can live in this home that I cannot pay for with the money that I currently have in my pocket. Ignorant people purchasing homes that they cannot pay for given anything negative occurring in their lives did us in…. that's what happens when everyone thinks that they are 'owed' a home…

      • AE thoughts says:

        "So you have two kinds of investment happening here: one in people who will spend money on intangible financial vehicles that warp prices, and another in people who will purchase real products. Both get the capital flowing – people spend the money – but one (real products) is a much safer investment. Not to mention the social justice dimension of depriving people of healthcare and hurting their quality of living, but that's another story. "

        Again – this all knowing knowledge of what 'rich people' spend their money on is amazing… what constitutes a 'real product'? So you would eliminate any spending of money on anything not basic in nature? So automobiles are out… restaurants are out….movie theatres and all types of entertainment are out… Because those are not real products you see – those are luxuries and only those with extra money can spend on those luxuries… therefore if no money comes into those areas – no one gets paid..

        What rich person is depriving anyone of health care….? They pay a huge amount of money to fund all sorts of care – medicare and the like…. why does anyone have to pay for someone else's care? Is not everyone responsible for their own well-being – their family, friends etc… may take it upon themselves to assist absolutely – but should a person be forced by threat of imprisonment and/or loss of life to fund for the care of someone else unknown to them? If so – why? Why do I have an obligation to fund 16 year old susy's HIV testing? I did not choose to sleep around and run the risk of contracting a disease? Personal responsibility…. I know – those words are like greek to you right?

      • Lostcustomer says:

        Yes, the Clinton years did have a great economic growth, thanks to a Republican congress. And the tech bubble burst and there was a recession. It took GWB to get us out of that recession. Oh, look at NAFTA; it has been the worst piece of anti-American legislation passed in the last 40 years and is still having a great impact on our economy. It needs to be repealed.

      • James says:

        I'm not in the top tax bracket so I will answer your question about why I am fighting on behalf of the wealthy.

        First, I'm not fighting on behalf of the wealthy, I'm fighting for freedom to not have wealth confiscated by the government. When fighting for freedom I don't base who I'm fighting for on their sex, race, age, political affiliation, etc. so why should I base it on their wealth?

        Second, I'm in this fight because I believe in the words of Thomas Jefferson from his Inaugural Address: "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." If the wealthy have more bread then they need then they should decide what to do with it, not the government. That's freedom.

      • Jim Uberti says:

        Alex, it's all demagougery. Even if he did tax ONLY the millionaires and billionaires a few more percentage points, how much of a dent do you think it would put in the deficit??
        This is all showmanship for the next big "show" (2012).
        It's nothing but inciting class warfare. It's the only way he can pull his chesnuts out of the fire. He's screwed up the economy and only wants cover until he's reelected.
        When Carter was president, the catch phrase of the day was"style not substance" I never thought that I would see this again in my lifetime. But I am, and this time it's on steroids.
        The man should never have been elected. He's in way over his head.

        • Alex says:

          Apparently, the income tax revenue from the highest tax bracket alone would be $700 billion dollars. Add in the closed loopholes and you get another $300b or so, ending up with an additional $1T in revenue that was a part of the $4T to close the fiscal gap in Obama's "mega deal." That's a pretty decent dent.
          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05brook

      • Jfeet28 says:

        Why are we, the non-millionaires concerned about them? That is a very telling question indeed. It pre-supposes that we are in it for ourselves. We constitutional conservatives stand on the constitution, not on what's in it for us. It's wrong to want to target the successful simply because govt. has the power to redistribute wealth illegally, just as it is wrong to excuse half the nation of paying any tax at all. A non constitutional administration seeks to divide the people in whom real power is invested by the constitution, thereby literally stealing that power for the sake of power itself.

        Whey do we care about what happens to millionaires? Because we care about everyone as a whole who represents this nation. We have not allowed a power drunk administration to divide us against each other. I appreciate your thoughts and would encourage you to see the larger view from the standpoint of our constitution and national interest.

        • Alex says:

          Jfeet – if you "care about everyone as a whole who represents this nation" then what about the people who will pay the price for the tax cut on the wealthy, i.e. people in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? If these programs are cut, their quality of life will take a much greater hit than the quality of life of the people in the highest tax brackets would if the tax rate increased three percent. I agree that people should care about each other's welfare, but the utilitarian approach that you are suggesting goes against the point you are trying to make.

          • John Feet says:

            Of course you were only allowed to read it once it was passed, but I suggest you read the Affordable Health Care act which cuts Medicare by 400 Billion. And that fact completely destroys your argument.

      • Dan says:

        Never worked for a poor person. Its great that the working man puts more money back into the so called goods and services thereby creating demand, but guess what if the working man is not working it ends there, no demand no sale. If the rich can make more money by expanding, they will expand. If govt gets in the way and punishes the so called rich for expanding than what you get is a contraction much like what we are witnessing now.

        • Alex says:

          Dan – could you clarify the "never worked for a poor person" argument for me? I think it falls flat because these are income taxes we're talking about. Unless you're in a service industry, your salary comes from a company, not from someone else's income.

      • elkomike says:

        Your 2nd premise is invalid. Private sector investment is speculative, to be sure, but all of the speculative risk, assuming a free market, is theirs. They invest with an eye towards making a profit and they may or may not succeed. Warp the economy? Nope. But since you brought it up along with the housing bubble let us look at what REALLY happens.
        In the name of doing good, government intervenes in the markets. They may pass a Community Reinvestment Act to ensure that EVERYONE, whether they can pay or not, is able to "buy" a home. Then they go to government entities, say FANNIE and FREDDIE, and push them to guarantee subprime mortgages. At this point in time the FREE market has been distorted. Houses are in short supply; interest is set too low; qualifications are too low; and the price of housing soars. A bubble was created by government actions. Bubble are the result of a systemic impulse to the economy and not the result of private investors risking their own money.
        In the case of the mortgage mess, private investors speculated in the housing market because government covered the downside risk. Of course an investor will jump into something with no downside risk.

      • Mr. Resister says:

        The premis is wrong. The Housing crisis did not start the recession. The governments interference in the housing market caused the crisis that started the recession. If Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did not push the banks to give loans to folks who could not afford a home, this would have never happened. And just how did the aforementioned commies push the banks, by threatening to raise the cost of FDIC to those who didn't tow the line. Besides, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would buy the bad loans, so the banks made money on closing costs and stuck taxpayers with the shakey loans. Meanwhile, if a bank has to give out a loan, why not raise the price of the house to get as much as you can. And investors and private individuals alike bought, fixed up and sold for a good number of years…the price kept going up. In a nutshell, that is how it happened…governmental involvement to help the underpriviledged. Costs us big time every time it is tried…SS Disability payments, Welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, 235 HomeLoans, Cash for Clunkers, prescription drugs, and on and on and on. Communism never works.

    8. Naughty pony says:

      Who has money they don't need? I guess to our "Big Brother" Government, we are nothing but ignorant cash cows.

    9. Krehbiel says:

      It looks to me like our spoiled brat leader is having a temper tantrum and throwing a fit for not getting his way.

    10. Rick says:

      Again this worthless president and all his corrupt politians wouldn't care about taxes as they have stolen and taken kick backs for there families and generations to come. They will raise the debt ceiling and taxes and let it be known they are the ones to blame for families being destroyed also for the deaths of those who could no longer survive there cruel rein. They continue to hurt the people and they ALL should be thrown in prison

    11. Anna says:

      Perhaps our esteemed president should donate some of His wealth to the country and some of his campaign war chest to the country! Get rid of OBAMA CARE and maybe the budget could be balanced. I sincerely hope that no DEALS are struck. When the Dems have the upper hand, they do what ever they darn well please and there is no talk of COMPROMISE. Cut me a break, Mr Boehner and get some backbone..hold fast to what must be done….the majority of the country will be behind you.

    12. Dean says:

      If there are people who REALLY believe they have more money then they need, maybe they should just write a check and send it to the government. AND maybe OBAMA can set an example and be the ftrst to do so.

      • Pat from Texas says:

        For Obama to even say this about having more money than he needs from the sale of this books is ridiculous. Writing a few cheezy "novels" with no attending outlay of cash, and owning a business with great overhead expenses is quite a bit different. Is this man truely a moron?

      • John Persico says:

        you believe what this artical is saying then you do not do your own homework

    13. DonnaW says:

      A friend of mine went to Germany last summer and stayed with a family. She said Germans spend everything they earn. If they do not, it is thought that they earn too much. If they save, they are taxed on it, it must be quite a heavy tax because they do not save.

    14. D. Buster says:

      Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy” Yep, that about sums it up. We can keep popping out college grads (and we should) but we are finding there are precious few JOBS available…

      BECAUSE IT'S TRUE: "the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well."

    15. Doyle White says:

      If Obama wants people to give up the money they don't need then he should give up every cent he has because we the American taxpayers take care of ALL of his expenses and his luxurrious lifestyle! Enough to make me puke!!!!

      • Lostcustomer says:

        Mr President; Put your money where your mouth is. Give everything you have over $1 million to the government. How about paying your fair share (35%) in income tax instead of the 23% you actually paid. Nothing but a snake-oil salesman. Do what I say and not what I do.

    16. Norm LA says:

      Personally I would like to see this debate continue much longer as more Americans see what is going on and Obama reveals who he really is. Every time he speaks publically, trying to convince a different group to agree with him, he tells more people how he looks at "revenue" which is code for taxes. And we Republicans, who are Conservatives get another glimpse of who we voted into office, [not that some of us would vote for a different party].

    17. Inverbrass says:

      Obama is inept as a leader and president. His actions are those of a tyrant and makes him far more dangerous to our way of life than Osama ever was. He is an embarrassment to the US making us a joke in the eyes of the world. The playing of the class war card is pathetic as his his racist, woe-is-me attitude. He enjoys the privileges of being president while unable to accept the responsibilities. His election was the triumph of enthusiasm over common sense and critical thinking. He is small minded and cluleless as to what it takes to lead a nation. This is clearly demonstrated by those which which he surrounds himself. He is a traitor in my eyes and should be delt with accordingly.

      • W. Colborne Mullen says:

        Well stated!
        I call him a "reparationist." He clearly supports any person, place, or country he deems, to be under privileged, and that includes terrorists. Has the man ever said a word, in support, of those who are self sufficient, and do not rely, on the Government?

    18. The Farmer says:

      America is sorely in need of leaders in the media and government who will tell it like it is!
      Our President, a large portion of Congress and Judges oppose what the founding fathers developed in this land. Their main purpose is to destroy what the fathers gave us and replace it with a dictatorship with them in charge.
      Why isn't the conservative right Press pointing out to the American people that what they are doing is not only destroying our country, but most of what they are doing is unconstitutional, therefore calling for his impeachment?

      • Teresa says:

        Unfortunately, the media is vastly far left. I watch FoxNews, which tells it like it is. The main-stream media all love Obama, and as long as the majority of Americans watch these networks, we are dealing with very uninformed people. That's why it's so important to pass e-mails, etc to our friends and family who are ignorant of what's really going on in this country. It's a shame to say, but too many Americans don't WANT to know what's going on, at least until it affects them. God bless America !!!

    19. Basia says:

      Anyone with half a brain could have seen this right when Comrade Obama rose up from nowhere. He despises capitalism and success and believes that all monies is the government's to redistribute as it sees fit. He is an avowed marxist/communist carrying a great deal of anger, bitteness and hate. Read the book "The Roots of Obama's Rage" and it tells all. He is 100% polar opposite of what our Founding Fathers were like and they are rolling over in their graves as Obama's is precisly the type of tyrannical government that the Founders warned us about. Obama wipes his backside with the US Constitution every day. More dangerously, HE WANTS ALL OF YOUR MONEY AS HE KNOWS BETTER WHO DESERVES IT!

      • Mother says:

        Let's have Obama and Michelle turn all of THEIR wealth over to the IRS so that it can be used for his "I want to play president act". He doesn't need the money and just think of all the fun things he could do with out it, like maybe actually work for a living.

      • Palrak says:

        The book is excellent and is a "must-read" for every American who is shaking his head in disbelief. How quickly we have fallen, and it's all cold and calculated. BHO will never change his spots.

        ABO = Anyone But Obama in 2012.

    20. Judith in Michigan says:

      Would it be too far-fetched to believe that this administration, in the not too distant future, will take upon itself to confiscate businesses to complete the entire take-over of the American economy?
      If the government owns the businesses, they can dictate all terms, such as wages, output, number of employees allowed, etc. etc. Welcome to The United Socialist States of America.

      This snowball is rapidly spinning downhill and the death of The United States is at the bottom of the gully.
      Every single citizen should be frightened beyond belief as to what is happening.

      Those who do not speak up and actively work to expell this current administration in 2012 are complicit and deserve equal blame..

      • Judith in Louisiana says:

        I am frightened beyond belief and wondering if enough of us can see the disaster that is rapidly approaching. We must unite and avoid the tragedy our beloved nation is facing. J
        I do not want to live in the United Socialist States of America!

      • JBurton says:

        Absolutely wrong in your fortune telling, but I can tell you are afraid because you are among the wealthy that are crying when the only pay a fraction of the taxes they are supposed to be paying, or you are guided by them. The fed, at the request of huge corporate players, put a band-aid on a disastrous problem created before Obama's admin took place in the executive branch. Someone has to pay for that band-aid. http://front.moveon.org/hey-republicans-ronald-rehttp://front.moveon.org/a-fun-lesson-on-the-a-wor

    21. Glen says:

      This the Gov't demanding "mo money" If they hadn't spent so much, they would not be in this situation. If I remember my history, didn't we go to war with the British over taxes? The spending has to come to an end,and the Gov't has to quit interfering in our lives. God,please save America.

    22. Earl, QUEENS, NY says:

      The money we don’t need????? LOL!! In this economy, many of us are hurting to the point we don’t even have what we truly need!! Yet this leftwing out of control government still wants to take more from us, whether we earn minimum wage, $50,000, or a million. A better idea – does Obama and his demon-cratic party really need every dollar they have?? I don’t think so!! Let’s ask them to give up any money which they don’t need!!!! LOL!!

      • Alex says:

        That's simply not true, Earl – Obama is only rolling back the tax cuts on the highest-earning tax bracket. People who "don't even have what they truly need" will not see a tax increase.

    23. Ben C. says:

      What Obama and his friends fail to understand is that there simply are not enough rich people to support his "spread the wealth" philosophy. The top 400 wealthiest individulas in the US are worth 1.25 trillion dollars. Even if you tax THEIR wealth at 100% you have not even covered half of this years federal expenditures. As stated before – corporations don't pay taxes, they collect taxes. So the burden of taxes will fall on the top fifty percent of wage earners and the top 25% of wage earners will pay 86% of taxes or more. Seems like a good idea if you are in the bottom fifty percent – but for those of us who have worked 50 to 60 hours a week for forty years building a business it seems unfair. We are penalized for working hard and creating jobs. And I am not in the top 25% of wage earners. For free loaders like Ken Jarvis ("sign me up for the the wealth distribution") we understand Obama's voter base. If Obama is reelected we are officially done as a nation.

      • Rick Thompson says:

        Could not agree more! Obama continues to pander to the entitlement minded freeloaders to enlarge his voter base! Our real challenge will be to make sure there are enough of us TAXPAYERS left to defeat him in 2012!

      • AE thoughts says:

        It's not about spreading the wealth around…. it's about taking away money from those that have and placing that money at the government's pleasure. Then the government chooses to whom that money is given. That way the government controls all, rules all and others do not have the financial wherewithal to live without the government. It's about controlling the masses – not about having the overall level of living rise – it's about having it all fall down so that everyone suffers…. that way no one feels gypped by someone succeeding…

    24. Kay_L says:

      It's not that he sees your money as the government's money but that fundamentally, he doesn't see it as yours in the first place!

    25. John Doe says:

      Lets take spending levels and tax rates back to Bill Clinton time. The economy was good and budget sheet was good. The "no new taxes" is unrealistic. A 3 % tax increase for the top bracket is nothing.

      • Michael A. Gabel says:

        A 3% tax increase may be nothing in dollars, but it is not th solution to the problem. Further, it only enables and emboldend the government to tax and spend more.

        The two main reasons the economy was strong while Clinton was president are:
        1 – A Republican House that cut government spending and the capital gains tax rate
        2 – The dot.com boom.

        Wake up. Empower the people, not the government.

      • David Bess says:

        Why not a 3% increase on all taxpayers? Oh, that might affect you.

      • Lostcustomer says:

        A 3% increase may seem like nothing to you but when you add another 5.5% increase from Obamacare, 12% self-employment tax, 35% corporate tax, 10% sales tax and if you are an employer, another 12% FICA tax plus medical coverage, retirement, etc, you see the picture. Wonder why everything cost so much; it's all the "required" taxes and regulations. Since personnel income tax is really illegal, the people need to demand that it be eliminated. Let's have a fair or flat tax instead; or we could repeal Obamacare and go back to the Clinton era taxes…

      • J. Guidry says:

        John Doe, you are missing the point. Our money is not the governments to take. The liberals and commies see it as theirs to help themselves to when they want to enact acts of "social justice". There is no such thing as "social justice", except to the moochers in this nation. The money we earn is the result of applying whatever skills, talents or education we have acquired to make life a little easier for ourselves and our families. The moochers don't see it that way. We have it, they want it, they get the government to take it by force for them.
        The point is that the government produces nothing, along with the moochers, therefore our money is ours to keep because we produce. Simple, eh? Got it?

    26. Turner says:

      How about a President we don't need?

    27. mike says:

      business is a gamble… played with money this house considers theirs…when they take a bigger slice of the pot they change the dynamic and the risk profile….socialism is a monopolistic enterprise…..if you run five poker games and the housecut of the pot varies from low to high…..most players…with all factors being considered… will settle for the game with the most potential for profit and avoid the risk…with five games the price will go up and down to suite the economic condition of the players and their assesment of their chances the price will dictate its own level naturally…the gangsters in charge want their cut of the top and of the bottom line….i have a small business…and i've folded my cards…i dont have to play with them…i am surviving and i will hold the chips i have until the odds dont favor the house…

    28. John Engleman says:

      Why aren't all thinking people, including Heritage, immediately calling for his impeachment on multiple grounds. He is not natural born, his Czars are unconstitutional, he was elected accepting illegal foreign campaign contributions, he had no right to fire the head of GM and reward the unions while screwing the stockholders, etc. His executive orders are horrible, his instructing Holder not to enforce the DOMA law, and his refusal to enforce immigration law while pushing illegal friendly rhetoric and rules are killing our country. The bottom line is that he is still a radical community organizer with a communist father and communist Frank Davis as his teenage mentor in Hawaii, and terrorist Bill Ayres as his Chicago sidekick and friend. Each week he comes up with additional ways to deconstruct our America.

    29. USMC1063 says:

      This sounds like the old adage between a husband and his wife where she say's "What's mine is mine and what's your's is mine too." Obama and his Liberal Progressive Cronies cannot live and thrive with out picking our pockets. But since we are not profesional politicians we are to stupid to fully understand the gravity of his spend thrift plan. Well Mr. Obama we do understand very well and can see you for what you really are a fraud and a charlatan. You sir are out to do the bidding of the puppet master to derail the greatest nation the world has ever known and we know it. But in just a few short months you are going to feel a solid kick in the pants as your scrawny butt is tossed out of our White House along with the rest of your brown-nosing progressive pals. Just think of it this way the house cleaning has already started and it will be finished in November 2012.

    30. KC - NM says:

      The disgusting part of this issue is that Obama is only looking at those who have been very successful and have made money over the years. Congratulations for doing well but now big government wants to be bigger so pay up! But what about the 50% of Americans who do not pay any taxes at all? Why should they be exempt from paying?

      If Obama and the Democrats and Republicans really wanted to increase the revenue stream and to make the process fair for all Americans, they would kill the current tax system and invoke the FLAT TAX process. This process is based only on income with out deductions or exemptions. It also means everyone (from the very rich to the very poor) pays something based on income. So the rich will pay more because they won't have all the loop holes and the poor would pay based on government assistance program income received. Very simple strategically and we can also get rid of the over bearning IRS, tax attornys and consultants.

    31. Tim says:

      Why doesn't the President send in the extra money doesn't need to the IRS. Can't you send in extra?
      After he sends in all his extra we can start to talk about others!

    32. Michael A. Gabel says:

      The president is either an idiot or he is trying to destroy this nation on purpose.
      Any clear thinking American can see that raising taxes on anyone, especially the productive people in our nation is not the solution to the debt problem. It will further stifle economic growth and result in even less employment and less revenue to the government.
      If you have an out of control spender, the solution is not to give him more money to spend. If you have an alcoholic, you don't give him another drink. In each case you remove the person from their vice and you attempt to change their behavior.
      The thought that we could solve the debt problem by taxing more is laughable. The various levels of government already get close to 50% of what I earn. They have shown to be poor managers of the tax dollars we give them, as we are now on the brink of default. Still, Obama insist he needs more, and that he knows better how to spend our private property than we do. No thanks. I'll remind our pea hating president, and his rich liberal friends, that they are more than welcome to contribute their overabundant wealth to the Treasury.

    33. Nancy says:

      This is what I think Obama and those who think as he does want: They want us to turn over our money, homes, businesses and children to the Imperial Federal Government. Then they can put us where they want us, to do whatever they want us to do. We can be good workers or drones or pro-creators or whatever they deem best for the global society. They really do think they know better what cars we should drive, where we should live, how many children we should have, what kinds of light bulbs we should use, what toilets we should buy, and what we should be allowed to do for recreation. The only thing left for free thinking Americans is to get off the grid entirely or revolt. I know which I'm leaning towards.

    34. Dr. H.D. Sinopoli says:

      Don't be fooled by the new Republican resolve. The Republicans have in the past gone along with many debt ceiling increases. Why now do they develop the strength to hold the line. It's politically popular…if the public were not alerted by Heritage, radio talk show hosts, excellent conservative reporting, Boehner and the boys would have caved long ago. I'm not so sure Boehner will not cave again. After all, it's summer and he is not playing as much golf as he usually does.

      Why does it take new elected officials like Marco Rubio to breathe some new air into the rhetoric. Any politician that has been in Washington 10+ years is wasting our time and money. They are part of the establishment…just like lifer Democrats, lifer Republicans are in it for self-preservation…and they, like Obama, want every penny of money you either don't think you need or do need…they don't care.

    35. Jaker says:

      ". for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me." Anyone with any knowledge of the tax system knows that he is perfectly free to do this. Nothing keeps a person from paying more than is due and not requesting a refund. There is also a website where you can make voluntary contributions to the Treasury if you so desire. But as with so many other liberal suggestions that is for someone else do.

    36. Bill D says:

      The President also noted that the average citizen does not understand this issue and it should be left to professional politicians. Well professional politicans are the ones that got us into this situation. Also, professional politicans are the ones who have mandated less civics, history and economics teaching in our public schools.

    37. Dennis says:

      President Obama is in way over his head. He is not a leader. He delegates authority and the end result is the disastrous road we have been forced to travel. This President needs to listen to the American people instead of defying them. The President and the Congress have the responsibility of delivering a budget and solving the debt crises we face. Congress has the major responsibility of solving the debt crises they created and if they want to be re-elected they had better. This is not about Democrat or Republican, it is about doing what is right for this country. This is the first time in my life time that I feel the President and the Congress do not seem to understand what the people want. They in fact are alienated from the mainstream population and they are not responsive to what we want, nor do they seem to care. When election time arrives, we should make sure we vote out those who show indifference now.

    38. MN Conservative says:

      Everytime we read or hear a comment from President Obama about how much money he is "willing to give up" and that we should all be willing to do the same thing, we tend to wonder how much money he ACTUALLY has in foreign money accounts that is hidden away for him by people who are beholden to this administration (GE)? We tend to believe it's a whole lotta money! Remember that when you see an iceberg
      you are only seeing the "tip" of it – the greatest percentage is hidden from view! We just hope and pray that this administration does not get 4 more years. We may very well never recover our nation.

    39. toledofan says:

      OK so, a guy like Obama makes a boat load of money and because of his ideology he thinks the government should get the excess he doesn't need, so, why doesn't he just send in a check to the IRS and tell them to give it to the government to use where ever they desire or does he really mean other than me or my friends? Wasn't it Geithner that didn't pay his taxes and he's the Treasury Secretary, kinda makes you wonder, but, I think the reality is these guys have no clue. So, that brings us to the moment in time when, soon, the Democrats are going to have to make a decision either no new taxes and spending cuts or the debt ceiling doesn't get raised and if it's as serious as they are promoting, then their political party will be in dire straights for years to come.

    40. W A Potter says:

      If President Obama has money he doesn't "need" he can donate it to the government. There has been a vehicle for that in the past–known as a charitable contribution. If congress or the president wishes to put an upper limit on income, they should first stop increasing their own salaries and limit their own income opportunities.

    41. Ross from Florida says:

      Mr. President, Put your money(wealth) where your mouth is. Turn ALL your past, present, and future royalties from your "book" over to the Federal government and 90% of what you "earn" as president. Also pull your kids out of the Friendship School and send them to DC public school. Then encourage your friends and associates to do the same…like George Soros or those money-grubbing Hollywood and pop stars that you hang-out with. Also encourage the Democrat Lawmakers who claim incomes of millions on their tax filings.
      Now that would prove to the American citizen that you, your friends, your associates, and the Democrats are serious about giving back and supporting your liberal cause.
      What's that? Didn't think so. We have the same argument; I earned it and it's mine.

    42. Roger says:

      So, I am assuming that the next tax return we see from Obidiot will have zero deductions! In fact, why doesn't he set the example for all of his rich friends and actually donate funds to the government? There is no worse hypocrite than the one that says he is willing to pay higher taxes and then doesn't! They always seem to mean that I want you to pay higher taxes

    43. A. Terranova says:

      And who made Obama the God of All Creation? Where and under whose authority does he have the power (unless he steals it) and the right to steal? Taking what does not belong to another is, yes,stealing!

    44. Jim says:

      Despite Obama's and his liberal buddies' efforts, we're still living in a free country. Obama is free to give his extra couple hundred thousand dollars to parents who need it more than him. By my calculations, he would be able to give 100 different parents $2,000 each per year to replace the "lost" student loans and grants. Obama's so brilliant, I'm surprised he didn't think of this. Besides benefitting all these parents and students, he would set a good example for all the other cheap liberals (e.g. Al Gore and Joe Biden) who are hoarding all the money which they've "earned."

    45. john mcmahon says:

      I think perhaps a better way of viewing the issue of taxation is from an agnostic political or philosophical point of view. Let's just say that in general conservatives believe in freedom. What they earn is theirs and belongs to no one else. That there exists differences between income levels and the presence of wealthy people and people in poverty is not their fault, nor their responsibility to resolve. Liberals don't believe so much in freedom as they do in fairness. To them, freedom is imperfect and creates imbalances across a spectrum of things, income being of primary concern. Since freedom cannot correct this problem by itself, liberals see government as the facilitator of fairness, and taxation as the means to provide balance. Taking President Obama's commentary referenced here at face value, it's fairly easy to draw this comparison. Conservatives and liberals should agree to disagree on this point

      But take a different look at things. Look at government and taxation in the same way a business has to look at itself and its income. Don't assume businesses are inherently bad, after all they provide jobs to people. When faced with decisions to invest or spend their income, a business, if it wants to survive, must weigh it's options carefully. Each option carries its own value just as each carries its own cost. In the end, successful businesses will make their decisions based on which expenditures create the most value. They will strenuously avoid those that do not. Now, take an honest look at the government and ask yourself this question: Can I find any expenditure or investment that the government has made that I can see or measure any tangible value that came from it? Look at education investments. Have we improved our performance? Look at poverty and investments made there. Does 47% of the population paying no income tax indicate that we've made progress there? Does the fact that one in seven of our citizens receive food stamps show that people are moving out of poverty or increasingly becoming more dependent on others? Does that fact that by the time they reach 30 years old 30% of black males will either spend time or be in prison, show that our society is working for everyone?

      My point is, there are no significant examples of where the government has collected revenue from people who produce, and created positive measurable outcome for those, who perhaps through no fault of their own, cannot or do not produce. Now go back to the safety of your personal political views and ask yourself one more question. Is this fact of poor outcomes and lack of progress fair to either the wealthy or the poor? If not, why continue to do what we've always done? There is a better answer and taxation is not it.

      • Alex says:

        Interesting point. But do you think stopping these programs will make things better for the people you described? At least food stamps give people bootstraps to pull themselves up by. Should they starve instead?

    46. Robert says:

      This entire administration is about 'more free stuff for minorities" ……….which is why the Space program is being dumped. The president is a racist and too slow to realize that he can diminish how well whites are doing and the blacks will be even worse off. Who does he think already pays for prenatal, delivery and rearing of children for all of those inner-city teens having babies with no clue as to who/where the father might be. And, how long will this country remain exceptional when most of the population is illiterate ??

    47. billy barney says:

      Dear Farmer; the answer to your question is: there are more Marxists serving in the Congress than there are individual Republicans or Democrats. Simple as that.
      You want a professor to tell what to do – go to college, you want a leader in the Oval Office – make Military Service a prequisite, you want a Democrat or Republican idealogue mental savage for a president – YOU GOT ONE; odds are you're goin to get another one; and soon.

    48. Steve S. says:

      I bet that "money you don't need" talk doesn't fly when he's in the same room with folks like George Soros. That's where you can start, oops, he paid your ticket, didn't he? Must be waiver time, just like Obamacare. The lies get bigger and bigger. The problem with living lies is that it will eventually become unmanageable (they must be "managed" after all, unlike the truth) and will devour you.

    49. as always just ed says:

      Never talks about bringing debt down just spending money. He any anyone else can send checks into the government.

      as always

      just ed

    50. Jill Maine says:

      Why do people keep giving praise to Clinton. Clinton became a conservative so he could get reelected. There was a republican majority in Congress and that's where the praise should go. I am not so much fond of the rich keeping their money as I am in depriving irresponsible presidents and government leaders of money to waste because it doesn't hurt them personally. I think BHO should donate his whole presidential salary. He is a millionaire and he lives high on the hog at America's expense. Do you think he cuts back on anything? Other than our standard of living?

    51. David Bess says:

      Tax loopholes are present and enjoyed by all levels of tax payers. Of the 100 million plus people paying taxes they all use some loopholes to reduce their tax burdens. Mortuage deduction, child deductions, medical, and head of household are just a few of the loopholes enjoined by yhe average taxpayer. Probably the largest tax loophole for corporations is that they are allowed to decuct employee compensation as a business expense.
      The game obama is playing is not unjust loopholes for corporations but class warfare. He is pitting the corporations aginst the working class bundled with the entitlement class. Today his definition of rich is around $200,000 (married $250,000). When he gets done punishing this group, what will be the new definition of rich, maybe $150, 000 then $100,000, then $75,000. All of these are above the poverty level, so where dose it stop? well, it dosen't.
      So be very careful about controlling your class envy because that is his wepon and it is deadly to our economy and our way of life. Remember, private sector businesse and corporation are what build our national wealth, creates jobs and allows a path for all Americans to enjoy the American dream.

    52. Donald McGovern says:

      Yes, the wealthy have more disposable income, but they invest more in corps. which leads to expansion and more employment. President Obama may have more that he thinks he needs, but much of what he has is provided by the tax payers, i.e., Air Force One, Residence and countless other perks. What tax payers need is revision in the tax code–not new taxes.

    53. C. Hyatt says:

      Four and Out! 2012 will fix this problem. And, it's also time for a few Senators to retire.

    54. Patti says:

      Picking winners and losers is a theme of Obama-speak. Who gets help, tax credits, subsidies vs. who doesn’t. With 50% of our population paying zero tax, with many of those getting money back (from taxpayers), there is lots of room for tax reforms. I would like to know how much tax payer money goes to illegal immigrants for all the programs we, who pay taxes, fund. In my little county in Texas, that number is huge and very visible. Any auditor needs to just look around at tax filing time.

    55. The Farmer says:

      If the politicans in Washington would only stop the sharade, we not only need growen-ups, we need folks with intestinal foritude!
      Someone to stand up for us! Demanding open meetings, no more behind closed doors!
      If there is anyone there that really is willing to put America first, why aren't they demanding that all talk openly about our money?
      Or is the seat they assumed in DC more important then America?
      The first ones or one that can see this point of view and will say so, will get more then the Tea Party's vote!
      They will be able to tell and convince Americans that what they are trying to do is in all of our best interest!

    56. Rick F from FL says:

      While it seems easy to get positive responses from those of us who are experienced business leaders and conservative Americans, I have yet to figure out how to get through to the mesmerized Utopians who believe all good flows from the government. Please help us figure out how to make these folks understand that Marxism and its offshoots lead to economic failure. The trashing or ignoring of our Constitution is quickly undermining our exceptional place in the world. To see McConnell demonstrate his own disregard for the Constitution to avoid standing up to the straw arguments against maintaining the debt limit is very disheartening. We can cut expenses in many ways, from government pension reform to eliminating departments such as the Energy Department, which provide little or no value to our safety and equal opportunity, without defaulting on our commitments to our seniors and to our .

    57. Bobbie says:

      what does this have to do with his oath of office? He's in violation of the freedom of our lives!
      His daily expenses are paid for, is he offering his income? He doesn't need it!

    58. Greg of Dallas says:

      It's too bad Obama doesn't take that extra couple of hundred thousand and start a business that actually creates jobs so that we can expand the tax base and get folks out of the unemployment line. He could probably create 4 good jobs. But NO, he would rather the government spend it on job that cost $265,000 each as evidenced by the stimulas package.

    59. immortal says:

      I would like to know who has money they don't need. I damn sure don't. I had to extend my car payment last month so I could pay the IRS, now where is the extra money. They could care less if you have a home, or food to eat. They expect us to go out and work and give them all our money, while they sit up in DC making millions and have no bills to pay. Obama, he has no house payments, no car payments, no food bills, no insurance bills, so what does he do with his millions? He goes on his vacations on our money, not his, His wife goes on her little jaunts on our dime, not theirs. This man needs to go, before everyone is living in tents and eating scraps

    60. @snowcloud79 says:

      I originally posted this as a reply to Alex, but it didn't get posted so I am putting this in on its own:

      What you are not realizing is that when they tax "the rich" EVERYONE gets hurt. Past experience has shown that it actually hurts those who can least afford it.

      Just once I'd like to hear those who are saying "tax the rich" explain just who exactly do they consider rich? And is that net or gross? They need to be specific when spouting their usual drivel.

    61. NCT says:

      The rich get richer, the poor get poorer…

      The rich get richer precisely because they invest a portion of their income and assets, which generates more income and assets (if they invest wisely). The poor get poorer because they spend all that they have, and too often, more than they have. Seems like Oblama's mindset is aligned with the poor. His outlook on economics guarantees we'll be a poor, 3rd world country, if he has his way.

    62. john mcmahon says:

      I think perhaps a better way of viewing the issue of taxation is from an agnostic political or philosophical point of view. Let's just say that in general conservatives believe in freedom. What they earn is theirs and belongs to no one else. That there exists differences between income levels and the presence of wealthy people and people in poverty is not their fault, nor their responsibility to resolve. Liberals don't believe so much in freedom as they do in fairness. To them, freedom is imperfect and creates imbalances across a spectrum of things, income being of primary concern. Since freedom cannot correct this problem by itself, liberals see government as the facilitator of fairness, and taxation as the means to provide balance. Taking President Obama's commentary referenced here at face value, it's fairly easy to draw this comparison. Conservatives and liberals should agree to disagree on this point

    63. Andrea says:

      I honestly believe President Obama couldn't even balance a checkbook. I can't follow his train economic policy got the life of me. When I was a child I thought as a child. Some eople although no longer children still think as a child.

    64. F.D. O'Toole says:

      The most disturbing post is by Alex. Yes, people who earn more than is immediately necessary for day to day expenses either save their money for a rainy day, or invest it. Investment involves risk but it is not "speculation". Investment fuels business and business hires workers. That is how "jobs" are created and maintained. People in business will not invest in new jobs if they think that their efforts will be unsuccessful or, if they believe their effort is not worth it. It is certainly not worth it if the government will take the lion's share of the money they might earn. It doesn't matter how the government will use that money…for useful purposes or for "bridges to nowhere." At some point, tax rates become too high to motivate investment of time and capital, and so, the economy stagnates and everyone is miserable.

      • Alex says:

        Thanks for your response. I think we disagree over how different classes of people invest and how that leads to job creation. There are different kinds of investment, many of which are speculative. For instance, you can invest in real estate, which (assuming you are doing it for investment and not to live in) you are speculating that the value will increase. Or you can invest in the stock or bond market, again speculative because you are hoping that the value of your investment will increase. (Unless you're only in it for the dividends.) These are the kinds of investments that people with more disposable income are likelier to make when they are given a tax break because they can afford the goods they need with the income they already have (i.e. a 3 percent income tax increase doesn't come close to affecting their quality of life), so they are taking their extra money and "making it work," so to speak. These are also speculative investments, and as such they can warp the actual value of products, leading to bursting bubbles e.g. housing crisis.

        Consider that same money being given (either as a direct tax cut or as a subsidy in the form of social security or medicare) to a working-class person. They are likelier to buy more goods and services that they need for their day to day life rather than investing it speculatively. This increases the revenue of the companies that manufacture the products they are buying, and encourages growth of these companies, thus creating jobs. So why not give them the money?

        Sure, if you buy real estate you need a real estate agent, and if you buy stocks you need a stock broker. In that sense, those jobs are created by speculative investment. But not as effectively as if you gave the money to people who are going to invest it in tangible goods made by people instead of speculation. There's nothing inherently wrong with speculation, it's just not an effective way to get out of a recession. Notice how Wall Street is doing just fine now but the economy is still in shambles.

    65. Steve Echols says:

      There is a definite "us verses them" going on here; but it isn't the rich against the poor. If I don't want something from the private sector, I simply don't buy it. If I don't want something from those who are living off of our taxes, I face fines or incarceration. As a citizen of the United States, I find that I cannot afford so many public servants. There is a lot of rhetoric about entitlement spending, but as I see it; the real problem is an elite government class that has gone berserk. Everything has a use and an abuse; just look at our self-serving "government servants" and consider; are they useful contributing members of society, or parasites about to kill their host?

    66. RG Schmidt says:

      I don't see why so many are upset over this "revelation"; it's nothing new. Obama alluded to his philosophy of wealth distribution all during the 2008 campaign, but businesses donated to his campaign fund anyway. He didn't get all his funding from the lower and middle class Americans, he got it from some very wealthy people, as well. It's small consolation to know they're going to find out the hard way he's been after their money all along. If you believe in a god, pray that Republicans in Congress will grow a strong backbone and stand firm; if you don't, at least cross your fingers, and do whatever you can to get conservatives to the polls in 2012.

    67. Bobbie says:

      WHY???? what does this have to do with his oath of office? He's in violation of the freedom of our lives!

    68. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Obama's need is Obama's greed.

    69. Maite Ortantes says:

      Do you guys think McCain and Sarah could have done a better job?

    70. Denver says:

      Mr. President,(and I know you will hear of this) : If you would , please consider setting an example of your willingness to sacrifice : pay your aircraft operation expences, your greens fees and out of town lodging expences for the period of your presidency out of your personal funds and we'll all think more seriously about what you propose for the rest of the country…otherwise, with all due respect sir, your position lacks credibility.

    71. Paul says:

      Did we all forget about the Shareowner?
      7% on your investment of say Exxon at $80 cannot be deemed rich with most stocks at half that even. Who owns those stocks the rich or mostly the middle class in a 401K.

    72. Judith Wolfe says:

      As a conservative I find it extremely hard to believe that Obama has remained in office. Nixon resigned over something so uimportant in todays world as Watergate. Obama has forced on the Republic of the United States a program so unconsitutional, Obama healtchare that he should be jailed. Yet the Republicans have sat back and done nothing and I say nothing about this man. If the Tea Party fires up to a third party and I certainly hope it does, I will be the first to come on board as a party member. If the Republicans fold on the debt ceiling Boehner better have a carton of kleenex because he will be history! It won't be cry me a river, it will be cry me an ocean!

    73. Bill says:

      Things are going along to plan. That is if you plan on bankrupting this country. Obama, Rei Pelosi and the puppetmaster,(Soros) hate this country the way it was founded and have it on track for demise. Their answer will be to align with the E.U. and abolish our constitution. This way they can invoke a new constitution and confiscate our guns. Game, set, match.

    74. Virginia says:

      If there ever was a time that a President could lift the mindset of the masses out of a life of expected entitlements and government dependency, it is NOW. Obama is using the poor and the minorities to advance his Marxist agenda, expecting that they cannot understand economics, do not read, do not care about anything except their next government check.. These people should be enraged that he does not think more highly of them. I urge you all to read "Up from the Projects", by Walter Williams, and " The Forgotten Man" by Amity Shlaes.

    75. MIke says:

      It doesn't matter how much or little they tax as long as they spend more than they take in. And as for the middle class spending driving the economy more than the rich because they purchase real products. Well not if the products are made in China. We need to give rich people more incintives to have jobs here. Im tax and regulations is not the way to do that.

    76. Lesliej says:

      I have an idea! Let's take Obama's campaign contributions and distribute them to all other political candidates, especially the individuals who haven't done a thing to earn their own funds….fair is fair. Why do so many people have such a difficult time understanding that their very jobs and livelihoods are very closely tied to the wealth and prosperity of businesses. The banking/housing bubble was more due to government interference and regulation than greed, no legitimate bank wanted to lend to people who were high risk; the government required these transactions under threat of essentially crippling consequences if they didn't participate. Stop biting the hand that feeds you!

    77. Wes Evans says:

      The President demonizes the corporate jet user. I wonder what the cost of Air Force one and the other air craft that are provided for the use of Obama administration officials comes to? How about the cost of air transport for our elected officials and senior government beaurocrats? I bet it far exceeds the depreciation tax allowance for corporate air travel. My guess is that non comercial air travel by goverment

    78. KotcherintheY says:

      Line 41 in the article reads: "…to lend a hand or get out of they". It should read: "…to lend a hand or get out of the way".

    79. fauxpopuli says:

      Gee, and if I read through the lines of this article's implications, then I must be rich! Checking… let's see… nope, I don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I guess this doesn't affect me at all. Simple mistake Heritage, I'm sure you'll correct it!

    80. free one says:

      This is about freedom. One can determine his own needs; spend the extra, save it,give it to another person, his alma mater, or reinvest it; but it is his choice.

    81. Paine says:

      When the very wealthy get tax breaks they generally keep the money and do not spend it on real goods and services that stimulate the economy(After all how many cars does one person need, how many maids does a millionaire have to have, how many country clubs do they need to belong to).In years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less—which it is now—employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent. And there’s no cherry-picking here. Pick any threshold. When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that. As Abraham Lincoln said all capital begins with labor, with work. Without workers there is no wealth. A sound economic system creates wealth by way of its labor. In America that is till only somewhat true. The wealth created by labor is like a pie – with workers getting a thin slice and the majority of wealth redistributed to the top. Sorry, but no one person provides enough work or brain power to be entitled to millions a year. Top earners in the US are leeches living off the hard work of others. The smartest most productive people in the US do not make millions a year. The other half of the wealth story is the modern financial manipulators who make money off exotic investment instruments – they produce little of value for the economy – but they do leech off it’s wealth. Conservatives and some Democrats like President Obama have clearly sided with the modern robber barons. Wealth created by workers is redistributed to the top 5%. The average American must work hard to survive but has no real incentive other than survival – the chances of ‘getting ahead” are also nonexistent. In this economics there was little social ethic or role for the government as a dispenser of justice and opportunity for the masses. Taxes remain the only way to get a tiny fraction of the wealth siphoned off from people who actually perform valuable services like lay bricks, fill teeth, teach children and mop floors – back to those people in the form of decent infrastructure, college loans, emergency medical techs and fire fighting. Taxes in the U.S. are the lowest they have been since 1950 ( Google it). Capital gains, which is close to free money are taxed at a ridiculously low rate and yet with all that nearly free money corporations are sitting on trillions in cash and not hiring.

    82. rbinz says:

      what I found most interesting about the President's comments is that he considers those who make money "fortunate." Those "fortunate" people have worked hard – invested their time, their talents and their money to make something for themselves. They are the ones taking the risk; the bigger the risk, the bigger the potential reward. It's part of what makes up the American Dream – the opportunity to take the risk, to make the investment.

    83. Jeff, Illinois says:

      No new taxes is simply an unrealistic talking point of the Right. Somehow . . somehow . . the nation did just fine without the Bush tax cuts and taxes on the wealthy of as much as 90% some years ago. Your so-called money is your money is only because our nation has enough infrastructure and de-regulation to allow the wealthy to gain greater and greater wealth while the working class is stifled more and more.

      • Steve Echols says:

        Spoken like a true government employee. Your paycheck depends on how much you can steal from us. Don't even try to say you pay taxes too; it is just the mechanism of getting your cut of the spoils. The only people that want higher taxes are the ones living off of them.

    84. Jeff, Illinois says:

      Part 2

      The GOP's thirst for money and de-regulation created the mess were in that the present administration is trying to clean up. Without the stimulus package we would be worse off. Another vilian is free trade and states competing with other states for large companies. We will never recover if transnational corporations continue to move our industrial base over seas, because of the incentive of cheap labor and abhorant working conditions allowed. Guess what . . other people are human beings too . . trying to find their dreams as well. They're not all lazy parasites trying to take your wealth away. They just want a more even playing field. But then the GOP believes in corporate welfare . . ex. subsidies for the oil companies at a time of record profits for them.

    85. Jeff, Illinois says:

      Part 3

      This President is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful leaders this nation has ever had, but has been given a near impossible task while be obstructed by the GOP at every turn. MItch Mconnell stated that his party's number one goal is to ensure that Obama is not re-elected. Really, is that why elect our officials . . to take down an opposing administration. I thought we elect them to serve the people. The people have spoken . . they've elected Barack Obama. Deal with it . . we had to live with Bush who gave us two massive unpaid for wars and futher de-regulation that allowed Wall Street to bring down this nation. The GOP and the greedy are on the wrong side of history. Fairness will prevail, inspite of tactics and agendas of the RIght like those playing out in Wisconsin. . . The most dangerous person in the nation is Sean Hannity who distorts the truth to demonize a President who is trying to serve all people in our nation. Oil subsidies . . and fake Wisconsin candidates . . the people have the GOP's number . . !!!

    86. jerr jett says:

      all of you people that voted for your you presedent obama do you have a mouther are dad on SS that will haft to do with food do you have brouther or sister FITING FOR YOUR FREDOM THEY HAVE THEY HAVE KIDS THEY WILL GO HUNGRY YOU PRESEDENT IS GIVING OUR TAX DOLLARS TO FORRING COUNTRYES WHAT KIN OF A PRESDENT DID YOU VOTE FOR.

    87. W. Colborne Mullen says:

      Good Morning,
      I coined this quote: "The only time we have, too much money, is when we are dead, and then the Government takes your excess, to ensure your heirs do not follow, in your greedy path!"

    88. K.G FREEDOM says:

      This man if you could call him a man , is about as smart as an empty cup .

    89. Northlander says:

      If somebody has extra money, they're free to send it to the treasury so politicians can piddle it away. Nobody is stopping them. Just leave me alone. I send my extra money to people who work to keep America free.

    90. Francisco says:

      I'll just comment on one thing. The tax structure as it exists to day is riddled with loop holes that everyone
      including the "POOR" can and do take advantage of. If you earn less than 15000 and you pay lets say
      1700 in taxes because of the tax structure you can get a refund of approx 7000 to 10000 depending on
      how many dependents you have. Guess what??? That money is a tax free refund and there are other
      loop holes in the system. Now, if every one including the poor and the rich paid 10% of their income,
      there wouldnt be a tax problem. It's simple math. Everyone get's taxed, especially if you recieve money
      from the goverment. There are perfectly healthy people out there who are on some kind of SSI or
      assistance that they don't deserve. These people don't pay any taxes on that money. 10% paid in taxes
      on any money you recieve would solve the countries money problems and there would be a surplus.
      Do the math!!! It's a no brainer. What's being proposed by obama ensures that taxes will increase and
      we will never get out of debt. Enough said.

    91. Peggy B says:

      Remember when this came up before? Remember when we saw Obama's financial statements? Remember how much of HIS money was invested in tax free investments? Remember how much of HIS money was invested using tax loopholes? Remember how often he tell us we all have to have skin in the game? I guess because he is the one saying it, he does not include himself in the "we all" part.

    92. cathy says:

      the only money I don't "need" is my savings…and Washington cannot have it! this is just stupid!

    93. Suzanne C. says:

      If the people of our country havent learned by now that Obama and his faithful brown-nosers are in it for themselves, then those who vote him to another term would get no less than they deserve. As for those of us who can see what Obama is doing to us and our country, we would be nothing more than collateral damage if he is fortunate enough to be "put" into office again!! But then, so would those who vote him in, by then it will be too late for everyone!!

    94. John Persico says:

      typical lies from the right in atlas shruggs their are also big corps that what nothing more then to use the people as slaves

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×