The Obama I (Don’t) Know – Forbes.com
Put otherwise, Obama’s vague calls for change that “you can believe in” are, to my thinking, wholly retrograde in their implications. At heart, he is an unreconstructed New Dealer who can see, and articulate, both sides on every question–but only as a prelude to championing the old corporatist agenda with a vengeance.
That program has three key components, which, taken together, can convert a shaky financial situation into a global depression. The first of these is his anti-free trade attitude that loomed so large in the primaries. But even Obama cannot repeal the principle of comparative advantage. Any efforts to scuttle NAFTA, deny fast-track approval to other agreements, or limit outsourcing will not be as dramatic as the Smoot-Hawley tariff. But combined, they would act as a depressant on general economic growth. Everyone would suffer.
Second, Obama is committed to strengthening unions by his endorsement of the Employer Free Choice Act, a misnamed statute that forces union recognition without elections and employment contracts through mandatory arbitration thereafter. That one-two punch could tie up the very small businesses that Obama seems determined to help. Tax relief won’t work for firms that won’t get formed because a labor fight is not in their initial budget.
And third, he is in favor of progressive individual taxes and high corporate taxes. It is as though the U.S. does not have to compete for labor and capital in global markets. My fear is that with his strong egalitarian bent, he has not internalized the lesson that high rates do not offset declining revenues.
Anyone who hasn’t got an OB IV hooked up to their cerebral cortex has to realize this thing is a goddamned disaster. And then you have Barney Frank saying shit like this….
It’s no longer figurative, it is literal; I am being warned, outright, to not dare attempt to grow my income, because if I do, I’ll get screwed.
Frank's cavalier attitude toward the deficit is a far greater danger, IMHO.
his quip about “money we can recover” is the one that worries me.
He honestly believes that ALL money should inherently belong the the government, and that he and his fellows DC asshats are somehow getting screwed by those dollars sitting in the people who earned those dollars pockets.
Why else use “recover” when saying that sentence? He believes that money don't belong to Me, but to He.
“Why else use “recover” when saying that sentence?”
Because he intends for reclamation to be retroactive, LOL!
(In all honesty, I want McCain to win and I don't like Barky's tax designs anymore than McCain's, but I have ALWAYS advocated some facility for getting some of the loot Republicans and independents first, then Dems, foreign interests, and just about everyone else who happened to wander by the candy store, and joined in the looting by blatantly ripping off from the American Treasury. Not “the people”, the Treasury.)
“He believes that money don't belong to Me, but to He.”
And you quite unwittingly phrased that perfectly, for purposes of my argument, which is simple. Barney Frank and you represent the absolute opposite extremes of attitudes toward taxation in this country.
Frank would absolutely think it “progress” for your gross salary, returns on investment, perhaps even real property, etc., to be the possession of the United States Government, whereas you would be paid whatever living stipend he and whatever committee he'd lead to determine how much you needed to live on each month.
You, on the other hand, (and forgive me in advance if I exaggerate, but I think I'm pretty close to the reality of the situation) really don't believe believe you should have to pay one penny to the government through taxation. Under your system,
you have prepaid your obligation to the nation already, by providing essential goods and services in the national interest, for you are about “growth”.
When you hear a politician claim, “I want you to keep YOUR money”, you don't think that goes far enough. You'd want to be compensated, with all the “unfair” taxes you'd been forced to cough up, along with interest, for the length of your entire working history!
And that's why you shouldn't worry about this specific aspect.
As long as these two totally incompatible economic ideologies are adhered to, in almost their most stubborn, stringent forms, they'll be a balance. As long as the never-ending turf wars between the commies and the robber barons rages and neither is ever permitted to reign supreme, you've got checks and balances.
And capital gains ain't never gonna be earned income, not to any non-psychotic person (but that's another show….)