The following is a post from the Fox Head Blog. It basically sums up just a few of the reasons we should ALL be scared and running for the hills rather than voting for this man.
Over the week I have mentioned that I am very concerned-albeit scared about the potential of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama. I have not really explained in full why I feel this way.
Keep in mind, that I do like Senator Obama, even if it seems that I don’t. He is a very charismatic person and a wonderful speaker. As a Fiscal Conservative, one of my biggest fears and concerns is Big-government planning, spending and taxing. Senator Obama’s alignment with the liberal wing of the Democratic party and his gloomy look at America gives me concern. In fact, I believe his very proposal for coming to this nations rescue is exactly what I fear; Big-government planning, spending, and taxing. Is this what the economy and the stock market need?
Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin last week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to “reopen” trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit (EITC) and triple the EITC benefit for minimum-wage workers.
The Obama spending proposals are now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it. It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes. What do you think that will do to the growth in the economy?
In no way will this help with the economy. This is old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It’s plain old big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.
In one commercial I saw, Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop “shipping jobs overseas” and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he’d be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn’t he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It’s simple: He wants higher taxes, too.
Doing the math on Obama’s tax plan. It will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax. Tax, tax and more tax. It concerns me that he even wants to tax capital, this is the way to stop growth in America and assure no new jobs are created.
Doesn’t Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn’t he understand that without capital, businesses can’t expand their operations and hire more workers?
Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with moving to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It will lead us to economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can’t have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.
Perhaps Obama should take a lesson from Europe who for years have lived under economic stagnation and is just now waking up to the fact that lower capital taxation and lower taxation in general leads to growth and job creation. Obama speaks of hope and change, but his policies are nothing but pessimism and a change for the worse. This is what scares me the most.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Return of Big Government (Oh great!)
By James Pethokouki
From US News & World Report
Posted April 11, 2008
Here's a little straight talk: Whether you pull the lever (or fill in the oval or touch the screen) for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or even John McCain in November, you're probably still going to end up in 2009 with a push for Big Government of the sort not seen in a generation. More taxes. More regulation. More spending. "It's going to be like watching That '70s Show," says Daniel Clifton, political analyst at Strategas Research Partners, which provides research to institutional investors.
Certainly there are some gaping policy differences between the White House contenders that will determine just how big Big Government gets. Both Clinton and Obama want to make national health plans available to all—partially paid for by rolling back the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. McCain prefers a more market-driven approach and wants to keep all the tax cuts on income and investments.
But all three candidates are in favor of a "cap and trade" regulatory system to reduce carbon emissions suspected of causing global warming and to nudge the economy toward energy independence. It's an approach that could serve as a de facto $100 billion-a-year tax, since companies having trouble meeting government limits may be forced to bid for pricey carbon permits. And all three candidates will have to confront a Social Security system whose cash flow turns negative in 2017. Almost any politically feasible compromise would require higher payroll taxes—an option McCain says he's steadfastly against—as part of the mix. And it would be tough for any politician to ignore America's rickety infrastructure, which may require a nearly $2 trillion overhaul. "We're talking about government playing a different role than it has over the past decade or two," says analyst Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation, a centrist think tank.
For the rest of the article, go here.
From US News & World Report
Posted April 11, 2008
Here's a little straight talk: Whether you pull the lever (or fill in the oval or touch the screen) for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or even John McCain in November, you're probably still going to end up in 2009 with a push for Big Government of the sort not seen in a generation. More taxes. More regulation. More spending. "It's going to be like watching That '70s Show," says Daniel Clifton, political analyst at Strategas Research Partners, which provides research to institutional investors.
Certainly there are some gaping policy differences between the White House contenders that will determine just how big Big Government gets. Both Clinton and Obama want to make national health plans available to all—partially paid for by rolling back the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. McCain prefers a more market-driven approach and wants to keep all the tax cuts on income and investments.
But all three candidates are in favor of a "cap and trade" regulatory system to reduce carbon emissions suspected of causing global warming and to nudge the economy toward energy independence. It's an approach that could serve as a de facto $100 billion-a-year tax, since companies having trouble meeting government limits may be forced to bid for pricey carbon permits. And all three candidates will have to confront a Social Security system whose cash flow turns negative in 2017. Almost any politically feasible compromise would require higher payroll taxes—an option McCain says he's steadfastly against—as part of the mix. And it would be tough for any politician to ignore America's rickety infrastructure, which may require a nearly $2 trillion overhaul. "We're talking about government playing a different role than it has over the past decade or two," says analyst Sherle Schwenninger of the New America Foundation, a centrist think tank.
For the rest of the article, go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
