Power Line: Obama on Social Security
Being popular and having any relationship to reality are often at odds, and that is the core of the BO dilema here. On one hand, he wants to tell folks making less than $100K that "it isn't fair" that they have to pay FICA on all their income. On the other hand, he doesn't want to tell the bulk of his supporters, from $100K - $250K that they are going to have to have a 15% tax increase. A much larger percentage of people that make over $100K see through the fiction that "the employer pays half", just like a larger percentage of those people see through the idea that you can "tax corporations". Corporations only exist to make profits, if government chooses to raise the cost of doing business by adding corporate taxes, then the company passes along that cost to consumers. If the addition of that cost causes the product to be noncompetitive against foreign competition or on the basis of price, then the corporation will stop making it.
Likewise, every employee of a corporation has to earn the cost of employing them PLUS profits. If government chooses to increase the cost of employing them by adding further taxation, then that is just less money for the employee.
Why is it legitimate to have a cap on the earnings for FICA? Easy, there is a cap on the benefits. FICA wasn't SUPPOSED to be "alms for the poor", it was to be a safety net for EVERYONE. BO ignores that fact, as he ignores the fact that Buffet's wealth comes from capital gains, not salary at all, so Buffet pays ZERO FICA, not some tiny percentage. At least in this lunatic installment, BO isn't espousing FICA on capital gains, so any discussion of Buffett is either lying or lack of understanding, depending on what is in his head. This is a tough one for BO though. If he is the completely moral genius that the press would have us believe, then wouldn't he HAVE to understand the way FICA works? But on the other hand, is it OK for "The Obama" to not be truthful? I'm sure the press will be helping us understand this important dilema in the future.
In likewise impenetrable duplicity, BO criticizes Bush for "privatization foolishness", but laments how low the savings rate is for Americans and rolls out his idea that what he is proposing ... TA DA, Drum Roll please, is a private savings plan for citizens! No doubt some of his advisors will have to explain to him that a low savings rate is GOOD for Democrats. They WANT to have as many folks dependent on the government as possible, and the LAST thing they want to have is anything like an "investment society", where most Americans are invested in business and the economy and would have an interest in seeing through the kind of shell game that BO is pushing. INVESTMENT means putting your money in something that is going to produce a PROFIT, and thus GROW! No profits mean no taxes, no savings growth, no economic growth and in very short order; depression, hunger and death.
Maybe the stench of decay is just "longer term BO"?
Being popular and having any relationship to reality are often at odds, and that is the core of the BO dilema here. On one hand, he wants to tell folks making less than $100K that "it isn't fair" that they have to pay FICA on all their income. On the other hand, he doesn't want to tell the bulk of his supporters, from $100K - $250K that they are going to have to have a 15% tax increase. A much larger percentage of people that make over $100K see through the fiction that "the employer pays half", just like a larger percentage of those people see through the idea that you can "tax corporations". Corporations only exist to make profits, if government chooses to raise the cost of doing business by adding corporate taxes, then the company passes along that cost to consumers. If the addition of that cost causes the product to be noncompetitive against foreign competition or on the basis of price, then the corporation will stop making it.
Likewise, every employee of a corporation has to earn the cost of employing them PLUS profits. If government chooses to increase the cost of employing them by adding further taxation, then that is just less money for the employee.
Why is it legitimate to have a cap on the earnings for FICA? Easy, there is a cap on the benefits. FICA wasn't SUPPOSED to be "alms for the poor", it was to be a safety net for EVERYONE. BO ignores that fact, as he ignores the fact that Buffet's wealth comes from capital gains, not salary at all, so Buffet pays ZERO FICA, not some tiny percentage. At least in this lunatic installment, BO isn't espousing FICA on capital gains, so any discussion of Buffett is either lying or lack of understanding, depending on what is in his head. This is a tough one for BO though. If he is the completely moral genius that the press would have us believe, then wouldn't he HAVE to understand the way FICA works? But on the other hand, is it OK for "The Obama" to not be truthful? I'm sure the press will be helping us understand this important dilema in the future.
In likewise impenetrable duplicity, BO criticizes Bush for "privatization foolishness", but laments how low the savings rate is for Americans and rolls out his idea that what he is proposing ... TA DA, Drum Roll please, is a private savings plan for citizens! No doubt some of his advisors will have to explain to him that a low savings rate is GOOD for Democrats. They WANT to have as many folks dependent on the government as possible, and the LAST thing they want to have is anything like an "investment society", where most Americans are invested in business and the economy and would have an interest in seeing through the kind of shell game that BO is pushing. INVESTMENT means putting your money in something that is going to produce a PROFIT, and thus GROW! No profits mean no taxes, no savings growth, no economic growth and in very short order; depression, hunger and death.
Maybe the stench of decay is just "longer term BO"?
No comments:
Post a Comment