I keep thinking of that McCain commercial this summer that made liberals go nuts -- "Barack Obama may be 'The One,' but is he ready to lead?"

They just need to throw more money at it, that's all. The Feds should send flowers to every mother in the world on Mother's Day. That would create a lot of jobs. Maybe $100 billion for Frito Lay and $200 billion for Budweiser and maybe $300 billion for...

All of You voters out there who voted for this clueless big eared dunce can foot the bill for all His pawnsy schemes.

dumbasses

It is well known that if you want less of something you tax it. Less economic activity is obviously what The One wants.

http://nomayo.mu.nu/the_power_of_taxation

As Rand once said: "Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

The purpose of tax avoidance is to minimize taxable income, mainly by utilizing expense (and other) deductions. Tax avoidance planning has NOT, in the past, utilized minimizing INCOME.
But this is Obamanomics, like Ebonics (but its effect is like Ebola).

Sadly 914, we're all stuck with this schmuck. And we're all stuck with the bill due to the gutless hacks down at foggy bottom.

Hah, $250,000! You wait, if he can't get enough taxes out of those making $250,000 or more he will drop the bar. If there is any Democrat out there who truly wants to see the United States remain strong, this guy should be beginning to make them squirm in discomfort.

I have read that Obama said, that his intention is to take the golden eggs away from the goose that laid them.

Kathie:

I thought it was the testicles of anyone who opposes him.

The $250000 threshold is ephemeral. In the end, if you make a paycheck, just endorse it and send it into the gaping maw of Obama's utopian delusion.

obama gonna take yer money...and give it on up to me...

Can anyone ever expect anything less from the demacrats and especialy from a full fledge communists tyrant like OBAMA i mean he is just like any tyrant just wait for the storm troopers and gulags for all those who oppose his rule

Taxing the wealthiest in this country DOES work, and history has proven that. History also reveals that conservatives are anything but--it took from 1776 to 1980, or 204 years, for this country to rack up it's first trillion in debt. It took Reagan & Bush the elder 12 years to double that. Then Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest in this country and erased that debt, leaving office with a surplus. Enter that national disgrace Bush the lesser, and tax cuts for the rich. Within 8 years he not only destroyed Clintons surplus, but also put us in the hole to the tune of at least 4 trillion! (No one really knows yet what his illegal war will ultimately cost in dollars--best minds say 3 tril. +) It's obvious who are the best stewards of our treasures, and who are the worst.

Political Armageddon: Ending Special Interest Influence in Washington DC

by Bernie Horn

There's no question that this is the battle of a lifetime.

The end of the world is near -- the Reagan world, that is. In one gigantic political battle, we can end the world of tax cuts for the rich, federal government-led attacks on organized labor, mindless deregulation, subsidies for wealthy corporations, war against science and preemptive war in Iraq.

The old political world will end on October 1, 2009 (the beginning of the next fiscal year) -- if we just win the battle to enact President Obama's budget.

Anyone who didn't see or hear Obama's Weekly Address on Saturday should go to the White House website and watch it. It is a declaration of war against the special interests:

I realize that passing this budget won't be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington.

hiddenmysteries.net/geeklog/article.php?story=20090302172226488

Yeah, JC. It took Obama 6 weeks to spend as much as Bush in 8 years, and promise out 3 times as much in interest and future programs.

That sure makes me optimistic for the rest of his tenure as President.

Not to pee on an otherwise good comment, Mr Hammer, but Clinton didn't "erase that debt." He just balanced the budget. He was just getting started on paying down the debt when he left office.

Dear Hammer: While yer head is where it is you might want to look for polyps. You should bite them off as they might be cancerous....

No great loss; it sound like she is more interested in $$$ than in her patients: "This office was terrible to me and I don't recommend them to anyone. Not only were they very late and unprofessional, but Dr. Poczatek didn't tell me what she was doing as she filed my tooth down so much that I needed to get a whole new tooth instead of just a cap. I went to another dentist who immediately confirmed my fears. She cost me over $700 in repairs and was terribly rude when I tried to speak with her about her mistakes." read more at .ratemds.com/filecache/doctor-ratings.jsp?did=20753

Right. If you make, say, $250K you'll pay at 36%. If you make $10k more, you'll pay tax on that $10K at 39.6%. Remember, it's still 36% on the first $250K.

So, instead of keeping $6400 out of that $10K, you'll only get to keep $6040.

Is the thought of paying taxes so loathsome to anyone that they would rather not have $6040?

Frankly, if my dentist was that stupid, I'd shop around for a new one.

I don't mind paying taxes when used responsibly and honestly. Anyone that beieves that the government actually needs more money instead of cutting spending is lacking in business skills.

As far a special interests, what about the Teachers Union, Labor Unions, etc. that Barry is still letting into the fold? They don't count? ww

It's obvious who are the best stewards of our treasures, and who are the worst.

Both have always been the wealthy bankers, as they are not our treasures any more. Politicians are only here to make us feel like we have a choice. The good cop/bad cop thing has most people fooled.

Haven't posted here in awhile...

There are flaws with the reasoning that you need to drop your income to under $250K to avoid paying a higher tax. First, as far as I understand if you make $255K, let's say, you will pay 39% tax on the $5K over $250K and not on the entire $255K.

So, I would suggest that those of you who are worried about paying higher taxes either get a better accountant or learn to use TurboTax properly.

Now, that said, for 10 attorneys who follow their misguided understanding of the tax laws and drop their loyal customers and cut their working hours by 10% there will be one new attorney who will pick up the slack. That attorney will also charge less and be younger and more competitive.

I am not an attorney or a dentist but I know that if my dentist or attorney tell me they can't serve me anymore because they have to pay $300/year more in taxes I will just turn around and go to a different one.

This man is a total fool. The more I look at him the more he looks like Curious George.

President Obama's decision to raise taxes by allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset is having the predicted effect on the nation's financial markets: they are cratering.

This is an inane statement. What did you want? The Bush tax cuts made permanent? Like, they helped a lot.

What is it with this obsession with money? Even at 39% tax on the top margin, those making more than $250,000 will still get to keep $0.61 of every dollar. Why are the rich so obsessed with contributing to the society in which they live? And so obsessed with minimizing their contributions?

Why don't you take a step back and realize just how fortunate you are? If fate had acted differently for you, you could be subsisting on mud pies in Haiti right now.

Get over yourselves. Start being for "us" instead of for "me".

Oh, and stooping to racial and ethnic slurs is evidence of a lack of any kind of cogent argument to back up your point.

JC Hammer, your comments are based on two faulty premises:

* Reagan's defecit was required to rebuild the military, which Carter had allowed to wither into nothingness in four years' time (on top of a dead, stagflated economy with 21% inflation); and

* BillyJeff's budget "surplus" was the result of his pulling a Carter with regards to DOD budgeting. The terms "procurement holiday" and "can birds" are two which were popular during the Clinton Administration: where Clinton weakened the military by reducing the size of the standing Army from 18 divisions to 10, and by starving several weapons projects (including BMD and F-22, among others). "Can birds" refered to aircraft such as the B-1 which were cannibalized so that other units of the same aircaft type could remain flying, when no spare parts had been purchased by the DOD because of budget shortfalls.

In short, the examples you give of Carter & Clinton saving money and Reagan & Bush 41 spending it are fundamentally flawed. Carter & Clinton hoarded funding away from the DOD wrecklessly while taxing the public so much that the economy suffered. Reagan did not. Bush 41 lost his base when he reneged on his "no new taxes" promise.

Also do not forget that while Clinton was shorting the military budgets during his tenure, he had it on a very high ops tempo due to all of his silly "humanitarian" missions (most of which had no national security interest at stake) while ignoring the emerging al-Queda threat which did threaten the US and its interests several times in the 199's.

"Pollyanna"'s nick is well-labeled, IMHO, especially with this quote:

What is it with this obsession with money? Even at 39% tax on the top margin, those making more than $250,000 will still get to keep $0.61 of every dollar. Why are the rich so obsessed with contributing to the society in which they live? And so obsessed with minimizing their contributions?

Funny how people who think the way you do tend to be members of socialist governments in places like Haiti, Cuba, Venezuela, China, etc. which mandate income redistributionism by varying degrees - and are collectively poorer than countries which are less redistributioninst (e.g., some EU countries) or only marginally so (the USA, prior to Obama).

There is absolutely *nothing* in the statement "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that either requires someone to support someone else, or even suggests it.

Your argument is further weakened by the fact that in the US, the wealthy in conservative circles give a considerable amount of their wealth to charities, and the US public gives much more to charities generally than citizens of any other country. Google is your friend; these facts have been well-reported elsewhere.

My "fair share" of taxes should be no more higher proportionally to my income than yours, or anyone else's, regardless of how poor or wealthy I am.

Here's my personal tax strategy. As a small business owner I have promised and told my salaried and hourly employees that I plan to offset any additional tax increase on my business or personal income over 2008 rates (both local, state and federal) with reductions in employee salaries and wages. If my business and personal taxes are raised by $30K, then I will reduce salaries and wages to the point that my employees pay $30K less in taxes. My strategy is a zero sum gain for the government.

Brilliant Sun Tzu, brilliant. Your business must be a low-skilled one because you assume your employees have nowhere to go. If that's the case then your work can be done in China anyway.

Sun Tzu, what the hell would your income have to be to make your tax liability go up thirty thousand freaking dollars?
Yes, I'm too lazy to do the math myself. Enlighten me, please.
What'd you make last year? What'd you pay in taxes?
I've got a hunch you are making stuff up. I don't believe that anyone as rich as you must be is posting on Wizbang. This is kind of a middlebrow site, you know.