It’s often hard to tell. Take this one for example. Obama is reducing the amount of a tax write off that people who make over $250,000 per year get when donating to churches or charities.
Now, is this:
- Evil: An attack on the churches and charities by destroying their high value donations
- Evil #2: An attack on those who give have the audacity to have made money and give it to charity
- Dumb: Does he actually believe, as they state, that this will bring in money?
Here is your answer, moron. People who make a lot of money and are living the “American Dream” are looking for ways to save money in taxes, which are insanely high on those making big bucks. One way is giving to charities. You will stop that and the donations will dry up as these people look for other ways to save a bit on taxes.
So, does he actually know that and is evil or is he too dumb to realize it. Only time will tell.
These are policies that President Obama has advocated in the past, so we shouldn’t be surprised to see them in his 2011 budget. Still, it’s hard not to be a little shocked. The budget says, at page 40:
Reduce the Itemized Deduction Write-off for Families with Incomes over $250,000.
Currently, if a middle-class family donates a dollar to its favorite charity or spends a dollar on mortgage interest, it gets a 15-cent tax deduction, but a millionaire who does the same enjoys a deduction that is more than twice as generous.
That’s because the "millionaire" pays income taxes that are more than twice as high. It isn’t "generous" for the government to refrain from taking all of your money. The document continues:
By reducing this disparity and returning the high-income deduction to the same rates that were in place at the end of the Reagan Administration, we will raise $291 billion over the next decade.
This is, of course, Orwellian. The "disparity" is in fact a disparity in tax rates–higher income people pay much more. And the reference to the Reagan administration must have been intended as a cruel joke on taxpayers. The "high-income deduction" will be the same as during the Reagan administration, but the high-income marginal tax rate won’t be, so now the deduction will apply to only half the contribution.
Power Line – Obama Attacks Churches, Charities and Home Values
I have been saying this for months. This was all part of the plan. Its also why he wants a new stimulus bill. More money to help prop the Dems up for 2010 and himself for 2012.
I am glad to see someone else noticed this and that Obama admitted it.
Erik Erickson makes an unsettling discovery in the Obama Budget Proposal on page 9:
All told, as of the end of November 2009, about 50 percent of Recovery Act funds—or $395 billion—has been either obligated or is providing assistance directly to Americans in the form of tax relief. BY DESIGN, the bulk of the remaining 50 percent of Recovery Act funds will be deployed in the coming months of 2010 and during the beginning of 2011 to support additional job creation when our economy continues to need a boost. Many of the programs slated to receive additional funding in the near future are those with significant promise of job creation. These include more than $7 billion in broadband expansion, approximately $8 billion in funds to lay the foundation for a high-speed rail network, and continued funding for other transportation projects. All told, the Recovery Act is on track to meet the goal of disbursing 70 percent of its funds in the first 18 months of its life.
So the plan was never to spend the stimulus money right away – something which Obama suggested he and his administration had done and were doing in his SOTU address:
Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. [...]
(ed. -by withholding funds for a full year?)
[...] One in ten Americans still cannot find work. [...]
(ed. -and you did NOTHING to address this when it mattered for those people and (by design) didn’t act until it was politically convenient to do so?)
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don’t understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn’t; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems.
(ed. - um, champ. That was BY DESIGN. Remember?
Erickson correctly notes that change has not come fast enough BY DESIGN.
The money (or much of it) was supposed to be put on hold – by design of the Democcrat Party/Obama Administration who wrote the legislation – while the country suffered agonizingly through 2009 and people were tossed into unemployment. This was done intentionally so that the taxpayers’ money could then be dumped into the private sector in 2010 so that he’d get "credit" for a "recovery."
If this is as insidious and callous as it looks, Obama should be impeached and thrown out of office. He’s been essentially holding voters hostage for a year for his own personal political ransom.
The Jawa Report: Obama Refused to Get Unemployment Down in 2009 Because It Wasn’t An Election Year, Suggests…His Own Budget
So someone explain how the Canadian universal health care is so much better when the Premier comes to the US for heart surgery.
My grandparents lived in Canada. They told me how wonderful the Canadian health care was. 6 months to a year to see a specialist, several months for a checkup. Interestingly, they said there was a way to get seen faster, but you had to pay your own money to do it.
Somehow this is better.
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States.
CBC News confirmed Monday that Williams, 60, left the province earlier in the day and will have surgery later in the week.
The premier’s office provided few details, beyond confirming that he would have heart surgery and saying that it was not necessarily a routine procedure.
CBC.ca Article detail
This is a long article up a HotAir. I would have to repost too much of it to cover it all. So, click on over and have a read.
Well, Climategate just took another interesting turn. It turns out that it doesn’t stop just at some hacked e-mails. Professor Phil Jones, the former director of Climatic Research Unit, allegedly went further than just trying to hide the truth in some e-mails — and the UN might be involved, too.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Climategate scientist hid more information?
