Obama-Supported Tax Break for Private Jets Comes Under Fire - from Oba

[bonnie]

Obama-Supported Tax Break for Private Jets Comes Under Fire - from Obama

Rick Moran

This is so deliciously sweet it ought to have whipped cream on top and served up for desert at a fancy restaurant.

Jim Geraghty at NRO:

Today he mentioned a tax break for corporate jets six times. He didn't mention that he signed legislation preserving the tax code provision into law, or that the grand total of the savings of ending that tax break would be about $3 billion over ten years.

The man who flies anywhere he wants, anytime, cost-free, complained at great length that other people's private jets are insufficiently taxed. Tomorrow, Obama will fly on Air Force One to Philadelphia, Pa., to attend two DNC fundraisers, where he will probably again denounce the current tax rates on corporate jets, without anyone remarking on the irony.

What I think this reveals is that Barack Obama is not used to being challenged. Most of us have scoffed at his predictable straw men, his off-the-cuff references to tonsil-stealing doctors, his exhausted, "some on the right say we should take this extreme path, some on the left take this extreme path, but I choose this sensible path in the middle" framing of every issue.

As we recall from his attacks upon Paul Ryan at GWU, the Supreme Court justices at the State of the Union, and his jabs at Pete Hoekstra, Obama loves to go after his opponents in national addresses, with his targets in the audience, unable to respond. In the setting of the grandiose national address, there is rarely a rebuttal. Any interruption to dispute the facts - like, say, Rep. Joe Wilson yelling out, "You LIE!" during an address to Congress - comes across as rude to the office of the presidency. The Supreme Court is completely unused to being criticized to their faces; members of Congress are used to the back-and-forth of debates on the floor in which every accusation and assertion can be rebutted and cross-examined.

Obama will try and avoid debates this time around for that reason. Challenging his fact flakes on national TV while calling him out for his creation of straw men to buttress his arguments will be fairly easy pickings for a good debate opponent like Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann. I don't think he will debate unless he absolutely has to, and then if he debates more than once I will be surprised.

So far, I have yet to find a mainstream media source who recognizes the irony of Obama criticizing a tax break his own stimulus maintained. This means the president is free to continue dishonestly berating Republicans for it.

If you're keeping score, mark an assist for the MSM in this round.

[Dr. Shane]

Raising taxes on anyone during a recession spells disaster. During a recession we want more money moving around in the private sector. Increasing taxes on anyone takes money out of the private sector.

[bonnie]

Raising taxes on anyone during a recession spells disaster. During a recession we want more money moving around in the private sector. Increasing taxes on anyone takes money out of the private sector.

Someone should tell the "smartest man" to reside in the white house that.

[Dr. Shane]

Raising taxes is a good idea during an economic boom as it is a way to pay down the national debt and hold back inflation. Raising taxes during a recession is just stupid.

[bonnie]

Raising taxes is a good idea during an economic boom as it is a way to pay down the national debt and hold back inflation. Raising taxes during a recession is just stupid.

Raising taxes never pays down the national debt in any substantive way.For every dollar in increased revenue the government spends 1.56.

The increase to the "dreaded wealthy" would not even make a dent. Especially since Obama. It will however affect the middle class in a substantive way.Remember the "luxury" tax?

Didn't hurt the wealthy,they went elswhere to purchase "their luxuries".It did cost a lot of jobs and hardship for the families of the middle class.

Maybe a better way to pay down the national debt is to reign in spending. Eliminate the silliness as in the many thousands of dollars to study how to make Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly.

[Dr. Shane]

Raising taxes for the purpose of paying down the debt would in fact, pay down the debt. That would mean, of course, decreasing spending at the same time. Of course it would work. The alternative is to increase interest rates which has its benefits to it as well. Of course, at this time in our history, the debt is what we need to be concerned about.

The question for the right-wing extremists is, "When is a good time to raise taxes?" Obviously the government needs to spend money and most conservatives believe in a balanced budget. Those things don't happen with zero taxes.

[bonnie]

Raising taxes for the purpose of paying down the debt would in fact, pay down the debt. That would mean, of course, decreasing spending at the same time. Of course it would work. The alternative is to increase interest rates which has its benefits to it as well. Of course, at this time in our history, the debt is what we need to be concerned about.

The question for the right-wing extremists is, "When is a good time to raise taxes?" Obviously the government needs to spend money and most conservatives believe in a balanced budget. Those things don't happen with zero taxes.

Please don't add to what I said.I didn't say anything about zero taxes.Raisiing taxes 1.00 and spending 1.56 to pay down the debt is hardly the way.Nor is there a way to prevent that unless they don't have the so-called surplus to spend.

Nor did I say the government does not need to spend money.That is your desire to imply I have said something I did not.

However it doesn't take much to figure out when you are in financial trouble you do not apply for another credit card. Nor does your financial trouble entitle you to take more money from those you believe have more than you do

[Tom Wetmore]

What is not being adequately factored in is that we have a two-tiered economy that is seriously out of sync and getting worse. The economy of the lower and middle class (the overwhelming majority of the population) is in recession with unemployment is high, lower and middle class wages have been flat for decades, and prices for almost all basic necessities are rising (real inflation). Most luxuries, especially corporate jets, are irrelevant. Actual buying power for lower and middle income has been on a downward slide for decades.

On the other hand, the economy for the upper class (those whose annual income is over a half mil and claiming the overwhelming part of all wealth), is actually experiencing a boom right now. Fortune 500 companies are posting record profits, investment income is rising, executive salaries have increased by a factor of 10X over the past few decades. The cost of many luxuries as compared to disposable income has actually declined or has not increased at the same rate proportionately as the inflation on basic necessities. Unemployment among the upper class is not particularly relevant. Inflation on basic necessities as a percentage of upper class income is negligible.

In other words, the rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting poorer. The whole premise of a trickle down economy, the hallmark of conservative economic policy, is not working and is basically a ruse to widen to gap between rich and poor. It is a farce, really.

What is baffling is that the politics of the tea party movement that buys into that idea actually is shooting itself in the foot. The movement is populated almost exclusively by lower and middle class but most of its tirades are an effort to protect and perpetuate the other economy of which they are not a part and never will be. They are prepared to cut government spending on programs that actually benefit them, preserve government spending and tax breaks that do nothing for them.

Are you really worried about having to give up your corporate jet? And do you honestly think that if those that can afford a corporate jet will have to give them up if they lose their tax break on them?!?!

[bonnie]

and prices for almost all basic necessities are rising (real inflation). Most luxuries, especially corporate jets, are irrelevant. Actual buying power for lower and middle income has been on a downward slide for decades.

[bonnie]

In other words, the rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting poorer. The whole premise of a trickle down economy, the hallmark of conservative economic policy, is not working and is basically a ruse to widen to gap between rich and poor. It is a farce, really.

[bonnie]

Maybe we should start first with stopping the drunken spending

that is going on.

Isn't that what you do with personal finances? The wealthy are not taking it from your pocket.They do however put quite a bit into your pocket.

They require less government services and pay far more in taxes. I think it is 47% do not pay any federal taxes and many still get a government check.

In addition to the small business that does most of the hiring.

But let's get them for more.

I have a home based business and to a large degree can control what I earn per week. When I want something that is not in the budget I work harder.Tell me,what portion of the extra work I go to belongs to those not willing to work as hard

[Tom Wetmore]

You really don't get it, do you !?!?

Every response you have made swings wide of the mark. It is like have a fist fight with a drunken blind man...

[bonnie]

You really don't get it, do you !?!?

Every response you have made swings wide of the mark. It is like have a fist fight with a drunken blind man...

Yeah,I do get that many people are jealous of those that have more but I don't find that as a very good reason.

The so-called soak the rich tax on anyone over 200,000 is a mere drop in the bucket when it comes to what is being shoveled down the drain. I see no reason to give any party any more money to spend when they are sinfully careless with the enormous amount they take in now.

But I do understand how some are almost visibly green over the thought that someone has more than they do.

No I don't believe that those that work harder,have invested more wisely, owe a bigger percentage than I do

Besides Obama needs to figure out what he really thinks.As senator the bright one was horrified at the thought of raising the debt limit.Thought it was just plain irresponsible if I remember right.Now that he is president he wants it raised .This isn't the first time since he was elected that he has acted "irresponsibly and spent beyond our means"

Those that wanted the luxury tax on yachts didn't get it either

The many that lost their jobs because of the luxury tax did get it loud and clear tho.

[Dr. Shane]

The economy of the lower and middle class (the overwhelming majority of the population) is in recession with unemployment is high, lower and middle class wages have been flat for decades, and prices for almost all basic necessities are rising (real inflation)...

In other words, the rich are still getting richer and the poor are still getting poorer.

I don't think that is accurate. I think Wal-Mart has decreased the cost of goods substantially for the poor and middle class. When I was a child we did all of our shopping at second-hand stores like the Goodwill and Salvation Army. When I go to those stores today, their prices are only a little less than Wal-Mart. I never had a new pair of shoes until I left home and bought them for myself. Today I see welfare families in Wal-Mart buying their kids new shoes. When I was a kid there was time we didn't have a refrigerator, car or TV. Today I see low-income families with HDTV and air conditioning. A lot of that is because Wal-Mart has brought down the cost of consumer goods.

I would have to see some hard evidence that the poor actually have it tougher today than they did 20 or 30 years ago to be convinced. I live in the poorest county in the the United States and I don't see people here experiencing what I did when I was a child growing up on the welfare dime.

[bonnie]

The 'bright one" thinks those that make over 200,000 a year are millionaires and buy private jets.

The millionaires will go elsewhere to purchase their jets but the jobs lost by the raising of taxes won't go elsewhere.The millionaires that brings out the little green monster in "so many" will not be hurt by a increase,but will punish and hurt the many that are the backbone of this economy or were till "the great one appeared"

I live in farming country and there isn't one that makes less than 200,000 a year.Those are the ones that will be hurt

For those that worship at the governments feet take a good look at some of the states without income tax and with republican governors.Some of those states actually have a pretty good economy going. Wonder why that is?

Wonder which government bible some are reading that says

The government shall not reduce their insane and unnecessary spending.

[Guest]

You really don't get it, do you !?!?

Every response you have made swings wide of the mark. It is like have a fist fight with a drunken blind man...

Why all the rancor Tom?

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

You really don't get it, do you !?!?

Every response you have made swings wide of the mark. It is like have a fist fight with a drunken blind man...

Why all the rancor Tom?

Oh Richard,you just don't get it do you? That isn't rancor,that is liberal civility.

To some it might be a really difficult concept to grasp but some can grasp that you hurt the working middle class with higher taxes. The rich go elsewhere to make their luxury purchases,head for states with lower taxes,and work less. But little minds gleefully say "we made the rich pay"

That desire to "get the rich" is almost irresistable.

That is how we ended up with a mentally ill man as governor.He promised nothing but "to get the rich" with higher taxes.

There are those now seeing what it would take to get enough signatures for a recall of this man.

[Guest]

Oh Richard,you just don't get it do you? That isn't rancor,that is liberal civility.

I see. "Liberal civility" isn't that like a misnomer, or a contradiction in terms? I know it is if you're talking about liberals. LOL

[Tom Wetmore]

That's no rancor... This is a Rancor -

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Oh Richard,you just don't get it do you? That isn't rancor,that is liberal civility.

I see. "Liberal civility" isn't that like a misnomer, or a contradiction in terms? I know it is if you're talking about liberals. LOL

Don't get between a liberal and his tax hike for "the dreaded rich"

Somehow in their minds they believe if they hike taxes on the ones that provide the jobs they will somehow close the gap between rich and the middle class and poor.

The liberal simply cannot comprehend spending limits.

[bonnie]

That's no rancor... This is a Rancor -

Good likeness

[Tom Wetmore]

The comparison is the relative spread between rich and poor. The gap is ever widening. At best for the past several decades working class wages have been relatively stagnant, barely keeping pace with inflation, while top-tier executives income has grown 10X over the same period The idea of a two-track economy or two-tier economy is not a new concept. In the third world there is a similar concept called a duel economy and the US economy is increasingly looking like a third world duel economy. Just google these terms and do a little economics homework.

Your scenario also does not account for consumer debt. Yes, they drive that nice car, have the big flat screen TV, cell phones, etc. But they are much more in debt to do so. (Did your parents have credit cards when you were growing up? I know my poor farmer parents didn't...) But again on the two-tiered economy, do you think the rich are in the same consumer debt mess?

And Bonnie, it's not about jealousy. That's just silly. And the rich aren't providing the jobs. The largest part of the job market is among small businesses that are below the tax threshold that is being suggested by Obama. A huge part of the lopsided tax difference is the corporate income taxes vs. personal income taxes - big difference, don't confuse the two. That is the basis on which GE can post $14 billion in profits and pay no taxes. Even multi-billionare Warren Buffett said it is very unfair that his own secretary pays more taxes as a percentage of her income than he does. He is an advocate for rolling back the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy. Are you saying that he is green with jealousy?!?!

[Guest]

Don't get between a liberal and his tax hike for "the dreaded rich"

Somehow in their minds they believe if they hike taxes on the ones that provide the jobs they will somehow close the gap between rich and the middle class and poor.

The liberal simply cannot comprehend spending limits.

I'm pretty sure that's only the tip of the iceberg of what they don't comprehend. If you hinder the wealthy, and large corporations etc. then you hinder the entire economy. It's not the poor, or even the middle class, who create jobs, and wealth. Neither can the government create those things. Just try to get a liberal to understand that!

If you take from the rich and give it to the poor enough, then everybody ends up poor. And that with no remedy. That seems to be what they want. And that is why our economy is in the tank. Because we have a liberal in the white house.

[Tom Wetmore]

And that's where you are wrong. The majority of jobs are created by the small business sector. The overwhelming majority of small business owners are not among the rich. Their personal income puts them in the middle class. It is not the rich that are creating those jobs.

[Guest]

It's true that small business is largely responsible for creating NEW jobs. But obama punishes small businesses also, with all the new regulations and bureaucracies. He want's to punish anyone who makes over $200,000 a year with higher taxes. And here's the news flash: People who make $200,000 a year are NOT rich. But big 0 talks about them as if they were billionaires, and wants to penalize any success they might have. That does nothing but hinder the economy.