Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Obama to Special Olympics: Drop Dead
The One is sticking to his guns on limiting the deduction for charitable donations - essentially sticking a finger into the eye of the donor base.
Breathtaking.
The Ego-in-Chief is essentially saying he knows better than the charities themselves how to raise money and how they will be affected by his tax increase on their donor base. He's saying he knows the charity large donor bases better than the charity fund raisers who know their largest donors personally.
What the EiC apparently hasn't figured out is that although that provision affects about 1 percent of the American people, that 1 percent of donors represents a HELL of a lot more than 1 percent of charitable donations.
The difference comes directly out of much needed programs for the widows, orphans, the poor, the environment, and a whole host of causes... and yes, the Special Olympics.
Atlas to EiC: I'm getting some mighty twitchy shoulder muscles, if you know what I'm saying.
Splash, out
Jason
(It's gonna be a busy for years for the 'stupid' tag, I'm afraid.)
QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?
OBAMA: No, I think it's -- I think it's the right thing to do, where we've got to make some difficult choices. Here's what we did with respect to tax policy.
What we said was that, over the last decade, the average worker, the average family have seen their wages and incomes flat. Even in times where supposedly we were in the middle of an economic boom, as a practical matter, their incomes didn't go up. And so, well, we said, "Let's give them a tax cut. Let's give them some relief, some help, 95 percent of American families."
Now, for the top 5 percent, they're the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I -- I fall in that category. And what we've said is, for those folks, let's not renew the Bush tax cuts, so let's go back to the rates that existed back in -- during the Clinton era, when wealthy people were still wealthy and doing just fine, and let's look at the -- the level at which people can itemize their deductions.
And what we've said is: Let's go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent.
Now, if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.
And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent.
In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize -- when I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.
So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years.
Breathtaking.
The Ego-in-Chief is essentially saying he knows better than the charities themselves how to raise money and how they will be affected by his tax increase on their donor base. He's saying he knows the charity large donor bases better than the charity fund raisers who know their largest donors personally.
What the EiC apparently hasn't figured out is that although that provision affects about 1 percent of the American people, that 1 percent of donors represents a HELL of a lot more than 1 percent of charitable donations.
The difference comes directly out of much needed programs for the widows, orphans, the poor, the environment, and a whole host of causes... and yes, the Special Olympics.
Atlas to EiC: I'm getting some mighty twitchy shoulder muscles, if you know what I'm saying.
Splash, out
Jason
(It's gonna be a busy for years for the 'stupid' tag, I'm afraid.)
Labels: economy, Obama, stupid, taxes
Comments:
Breathtaking indeed.
Another battle in the war on prosperity, aka class warfare.
So Oboring thinks 'rich' folks won't change their behavior, huh? Anyone get the tag number from the turnip truck this moron fell off of?
Another battle in the war on prosperity, aka class warfare.
So Oboring thinks 'rich' folks won't change their behavior, huh? Anyone get the tag number from the turnip truck this moron fell off of?
# posted by 
: 9:39 AM
: 9:39 AM
Now guys, remember, it's the governments job to give handouts. If the American people want to give to charity, it'll be through taxation, and only to government approved charities. Nevermind which charities do the best job, some of those are religious affiliates, and of course we can't have religious people helping out others, because then they might end up recognizing their dependence upon GOD, thereby depriving government of its natural position of Mommy, Daddy, Nanny, nose-blower, and butt-wiper.
# posted by : 3:36 PM
: 3:36 PM
This is my favorite part, and I see it all the time from the leftists...
"Now, for the top 5 percent, they're the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I -- I fall in that category."
So the president thinks taxes need to be raised because people like him aren't already giving enough to the federal government. Unfortunately for the president, his tax returns are open to public scrutiny, so we all know that he didn't give a penny more to the feds than he absolutely had to. If he really felt that he was being undertaxed and that the government knew better how to spend his money than he did, he could have simply foregone any deductions when he filed his tax returns. That wouldn't have amounted to a whole lot, but a man as smart as the president would certainly know that Treasury has a special address that you can send a check to if you think the government needs more of your money than is required by the tax code.
Leaders are much more convincing when they lead by example. When the president whips out his check book and writes a big fat check on his own personal account to Tim Geithner, I'll believe he really thinks taxes are too low on people like him. And heck, it might even inspire his cabinet appointees to at least pay the minimum that's required of them by law.
Post a Comment
"Now, for the top 5 percent, they're the ones who typically saw huge gains in their income. I -- I fall in that category."
So the president thinks taxes need to be raised because people like him aren't already giving enough to the federal government. Unfortunately for the president, his tax returns are open to public scrutiny, so we all know that he didn't give a penny more to the feds than he absolutely had to. If he really felt that he was being undertaxed and that the government knew better how to spend his money than he did, he could have simply foregone any deductions when he filed his tax returns. That wouldn't have amounted to a whole lot, but a man as smart as the president would certainly know that Treasury has a special address that you can send a check to if you think the government needs more of your money than is required by the tax code.
Leaders are much more convincing when they lead by example. When the president whips out his check book and writes a big fat check on his own personal account to Tim Geithner, I'll believe he really thinks taxes are too low on people like him. And heck, it might even inspire his cabinet appointees to at least pay the minimum that's required of them by law.
# posted by : 12:23 AM
: 12:23 AM
