Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LLCF who wrote (60093)	12/13/2012 7:29:30 AM
From: jlallen	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

the point was NEVER that the Romney's were selfish... That was one of several falsehoods the media and those scumbags in the WH perpetrated on the Romneys.

To: LLCF who wrote (60093)	12/14/2012 12:16:06 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 71588

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/sandy-aid-package-includes-millions-for-smithsonian-space-center-forests/

To: LLCF who wrote (60093)	12/14/2012 12:16:59 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

The Left Is Not Without Its Fat Cats Who Should Pay More By Victor Davis Hanson Who exactly were the rich who, as the president said, were not "paying their fair share"? The rapper Jay-Z (net worth: nearly $500 million)? The actor Johnny Depp (2011 income: $50 million)? Neither seems to have heard the president's earlier warning that, "at a certain point you've made enough money." Could both zillionaires simply have quit making money at $10 million — and thereby given their poorer audiences a break on ticket prices? With all the talk of raising taxes on the supposedly conservative wannabes who make $250,000 per year, why not additionally levy a $3 surcharge on discretionary tickets for movies, concerts and sporting events to "spread the wealth" from multimillionaires? That way, LeBron James (approximate annual earnings: $53 million) or Oliver Stone (net worth: approximately $50 million) might at last begin to "level the playing field." Is Michael Moore (net worth: approximately $50 million) a one-tenth-of-one-percenter? If so, why do mansion-living movie directors such as Moore and Stone need state subsidies and tax breaks to produce their films, when most states are nearly as insolvent as the federal government? Warren Buffett likewise did not heed the president's advice that after 2008 it was not the time to profit. Did he pay any attention to Obama's additional warning that, "If you own a business, you didn't build that"? Apparently not. Otherwise, Buffett would not think that his own expertise and hard work had built Berkshire Hathaway, or that he has the right to leave his $50 billion fortune to nonprofit institutions of his choice — thereby shorting the Internal Revenue Service billions of dollars in lost estate taxes. With a trillion-dollar-plus annual federal deficit, either the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Health and Human Services surely could use Buffett's loot far more than the already well-endowed Gates Foundation. If the country is going to turn redistributionist, then we might as well do so whole-hog — given that eight of the wealthiest 10 counties in America voted for Obama. Why not limit mortgage-interest deductions to just one loan under $100,000 — while ending tax breaks altogether for second and third vacation houses? Under the present system, the beleaguered 99% are subsidizing the abodes of Hollywood and Silicon Valley "millionaires and billionaires" — many of whom themselves have been railing against the 1%. Should the government provide tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks for a blue-state one-percenter to live in tony Palo Alto or Newport Beach when there are plenty of fine homes far cheaper and sitting empty not far away in Stockton and Bakersfield? Blue states usually have far higher state income taxes that are used as deductions to reduce what is owed on federal income tax. Why should working folks in Nevada or Texas have to pay their fair share, while Wall Streeters get huge federal write-offs from their New York or Connecticut state income taxes? With the new obsessions over income and net worth, we might as well also means-test all federal programs. Should anyone — do we remember Solyndra? — be eligible for federal cash loans if he makes over $250,000 per year? Why would affirmative action apply to millionaires like the offspring of Eric Holder, Susan Rice or, for that matter, Barack Obama, while excluding the destitute children of Appalachian coal miners and the poor clingers of Pennsylvania? Remember the revolving door that Barack Obama once promised to end? The former head of his Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, used his title and insider contacts to walk right into a Citigroup fat-cat banker's job that pays him an estimated $2 million to $3 million a year. Clinton administration apparatchiks such as Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson and Franklin Raines — without much of any banking experience — reaped millions of dollars working at Fannie Mae as it went nearly bankrupt. If you leave government and immediately make more than $1 million, why not pay a 50% surcharge on your income for five years — given that "somebody else made that happen"? Why does Google have tax havens in the Caribbean, and why do six-figure-income college presidents have their taxes paid by their universities? For much of 2012, Obama waged a veritable class war against conservatives, as if they were all right-wing clones of Donald Trump and the Koch brothers. But modern Democrats — Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Steven Spielberg, Brian Williams and Oprah Winfrey — are as likely to be very wealthy as are Republicans, who increasingly better represent small-business owners desperately struggling to become affluent. Next time around, Republicans might remind us of that paradox by nominating a small-business scrapper, who — unlike millionaires such as Al Gore, John Kerry or Barack Obama — did not go to prep school and the Ivy League. And they might find better ways for those in academia, entertainment, sports, big law and the media to pay their fair share.

To: LLCF who wrote (60093)	12/14/2012 12:17:54 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Obama Peddles Massive Myth About The Fiscal Cliff Practically every time he opens his mouth these days, President Obama warns that middle-class taxes will automatically go up on Jan. 1 if Congress fails to act on the fiscal cliff before year's end. "The typical, middle-class family of four will see an income tax hike of around $2,200. How many of you can afford to pay another $2,200 in taxes?" he says. It's all meant to scare the public into thinking there's no hope of keeping middle-class taxes down if a deal isn't worked out before Dec. 31. But Obama is creating a false sense of urgency — and needlessly scaring millions of middle-class families — simply to gain additional political leverage over Republicans. The fact is Obama can unilaterally prevent middle-class tax payments from going up come Jan. 1, even if he and the GOP can't strike a deal before year-end and all the Bush tax cuts expire. Here's why: As everyone knows, taxpayers don't pay their income taxes all at once; they are withheld from paychecks in small doses. Less well known is that those withholding amounts are based on Treasury Dept. schedules designed to take out the right amount from each paycheck. Presidential Power Even less well known is that Obama can order the Treasury Dept. to adjust those withholding amounts on his own. As a result, even if all the Bush tax cuts expire, Obama can simply instruct Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to leave the withholding schedules unchanged, rather than let them go up. "If you were to go this route," the Bipartisan Policy Center's Bill Hoagland told The Hill this week, "the average employee out there would not effectively see any more or less taken out of his paycheck." This isn't a new or untested idea. In fact, in early 1992, President George H.W. Bush told his Treasury Dept. to reduce withholding rates as part of a stimulus plan, even though the tax law hadn't changed. The effect was that for most of 1992, workers had about $29 less deducted from their paychecks each month. Relief For Millions "With this change," Bush said at the time, "millions of Americans from whom the government withholds more than necessary can now choose to have the government withhold less from their paychecks." More recently, a report from the Congressional Research Office confirmed that Obama has the authority to issue that kind of directive as a way to protect the middle class at least temporarily, should the Bush tax cuts expire. In addition, even if Obama and the GOP end up working into next year to reinstate the Bush tax rates, or come up with some other tax reform plan, they can easily make all the changes retroactive to the beginning of the 2013. In other words, if the Bush tax cuts expire, and Congress doesn't reinstate them until later in 2013, Obama could simply insist that those rates are effective back to Jan. 1. The middle class wouldn't own one dime more in taxes. This retroactive tax-cut idea also is not new. It's been used several times, in fact. Reagan's 1981 tax cuts, which he signed in August, were retroactive to January 1981. Clinton signed a capital gains tax-cut law in August 1997, and made it retroactive to May 1997. And George W. Bush's 2003 tax cuts — which he signed in May — were retroactive to the beginning of that year. In one of his recent fiscal cliff speeches, Obama said that, when it comes to tax hikes in the middle class, "We can't let that happen. Our families can't afford it, and neither can our economy." He's certainly right about that. And he can make sure it doesn't happen, even if talks extend into next year, through a withholding order and retroactive tax cuts. Obama knows all this. He just hopes the public doesn't find out.