President Obama 1/24/12 - State of the Union
First let me start by saying I watched the speech, I believe in many of what he said, that changes are needed. What he said is true and should happen, govern't should stay out of what people can do for themselves [ his quote from President Lincoln]. Government should stop playing political games and work for the people. We should do away with ridiculouse red tape and buerucracy. Yes, even tax reform.
But how do we do it? Oh, lets tax the rich!
Tax reform is necesary, not tax the rich more - becuase if we say things should be fair, fair is not attacking one class over another, even if they are rich. Would you like it if they said, oh lets tax the middle class to help the poor more becuase they the middle class can afford it. No you wouldn't - but these are the facts: they are playing on our emotions. My father-in-law once said that it is unfair that he should pay for schools [ in real estate tax ] every year when he has no children in school. He said why should I pay taxes to feed children in schools by paying taxes when he had to pay for his children's lunches when his kids went to school. But this is the same man that says that the rich should pay more in taxes becuase it's fair.
So tell me, what is fair? Is fair whatever does not hurt or effect you. Is fair what you deem it to be at the time. If we are going to be fair we need a flat tax that does away with all these other littles taxes [ sales tax, gas tax, hotel bed tax, state tax ] as well as tax loop holes. Everyone pays a flat 20% tax. If you make 20,000 you pay $4,000 in taxes. If you make $50,000 you pay $10,000 in taxes. If you make $500,000 you pay $100,000 in taxes, but everyone pays 20%. That would be a "fair system". Oh but wait... what about the poor they can't survive paying those taxes... So then you want me [ a struggling family of four ], you and other people that are considered to be better off to subsidize them [the poor ] and they pay no taxes - doesn't seem fair to me does it? If we are going to talk "FAIR" lets make it fair and stop the non-sense. Becuase there is no way to make this work if first we don't cut government spending [ more money only means more programs and bigger govn't ] and oh, solve poverty while you're at it. Fair, really - you say it's fair becuase your looking at them being taxed, but your forgetting that the govrn't is looking at you to be taxed as well.
What is the Mantra - tax breaks for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich. Ok, lets do the math: how many rich people are there, 2 million? Ok, lets say 10 million. Now, how many middle class people are there: well, in 2009 it was estimated that 18 million people lived in florida alone so lets say 200 million people are considered middle class and that would leave us with a gigantic population of 100 million poor people who do not pay taxes [ get a refund at end of year ] if you consider there is an estimated population of 310,198,379 in USA.
That means to run the government, even if you took all the rich peoples money [ all 100% of it ] it would still not be enough even to pay the 15 Trillion dollar deficiet. So who do you think they will tax - the small group of people or the lager group of people? So don't talk as if taxing the rich more and giving the middle class a tax break is the plan, because it's not. The plan is to raise taxes on the rich and keep taxes the same for everyone else. Not because it's fair but because they [ govt ] want and need more money to keep spending.
Again, the mantra is tax breaks for middle class and raise taxes on the rich. sounds great, right? but how do you pay for the tax breaks to the middle class? We need to tax the rich just to almost pay our governments bills but if you give tax cuts to the middle class [ the larger of the two groups ] then all you are doing is spending more money that you do not have. The proposed "extending the payroll tax" they spent months arguing over - they say [ President Obama ] that we [ every employee ] would pay $40 dollars extra in taxes every pay check if we let the tax break lapse. lets do the math - 200 million middle class people at $40 each equals 8 billion dollars - but you promise to give middle class people more tax breaks and tax the rich more? The math does not make sense. Even if you gave only gave an extra $40 dollars in tax breaks to every middle class person, that is $8 billion you have to tax the Rich on a weekly basis on top of the social and government expenses you refuse to cut.
[ So if we took 200 million people at $40 dollars a pay check at 52 weeks we are looking at about $413 trillion in tax breaks??? I doubt they will give us anything that comes close to that. Oh, maybe they plan to give us a tax break of $40 dollars on an annual basis, that makes it easier I think ?]
We need government spending cut - I know, you go strait to the argument that we can't cut social security and medicaid, I did not say that. Try something more like the health benefit congress has? Try more like: cutting Congress' forever salary and spouse salary? Try cutting back on all those congressional aids... do some of your own work senator. Lets cut some of those salaries congress has that's outrageous compared to the real world. Especially the salaries of aides that get paid three times what an average American gets in corporate America. Let's talk about those cuts first before we even think about cutting medicaid and social security.
So my argument is - FIX the problem stop the lies.
People should stop believing the lies, stop allowing government to pull on our heart strings, play with our emotions and even greed - and we the people should tell government "Congress, Government - Do what your job requires you to do and no more".
Put the stegal act back that was only 35 pages long and forget this 2,300 page monster of a bill you forced down our throats. If agencies have no teeth to do their jobs in stopping financial fraud and so forth - give'em teeth. If agencies are not doing their jobs - fire the people and get people who will work. Cut the red tape and bureaucracy and help the people do what they need and don't force on them what they do not. Save the environment but do it right - if I sell yogurt why do I need a grease trap? [ * see notes below ]
Per President Obama on cutting unnecessary regulations and red tape
Milk Farmer have to pay $10,000 if fees to prove they know how to control and clean up a milk spill?
Three days earlier I read a news article by Guest Columnist Susan Stamper Brown [ jan 18 2012 ]
titled: Over-regulation is choking the life out of American business
Where she uses her brother [ who wanted to start a Yogurt business ]as a perfect example of over regulation: " He was told he needed to purchase environmentally friendly grease trap equipment, although no frying is invovled in serving non-fat yogurt."
And it didn't stop there. So - even though I do not fry anything I am obligated to get this extra expensive equipment? Why?
[ President Obama ] He made a pitch for smarter regulations. There will be "no bailouts, no handouts and no copouts," he said, a bit of hot rhetoric to reverse the idea that he is in favor of mindless government intervention. It was a version of Bill Clinton's 1996 pledge that "the era of big government is over."
President Obama 1/24/12 - State of the Union
Obama was also using his speech Tuesday night to expand on the “fairness” theme he discussed in his Kansas speech last month.
He made the case for raising taxes on higher-income people such as legendary Omaha investor Warren Buffett who have income from capital gains and dividends.
"Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes," the president declared. "If you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up."
He added, "You can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense."
President Obama by my account [ hearing speech ] offered to create atleast three new agencies [ making bigger government ] but how do we pay for it - if we have to control spending. He asked for congress to give him the power to consoladate agencies to shrink govn't and save money by cutting red tape and redundencies but then turns around and wants to create 3 new large agencies?
* Meanwhile, Obama’s ability to get Congress pay for any new proposal he might make is boxed in by controls on spending which he signed into law last year as part of an accord with Congress to raise the limit on federal borrowing.
Any new program would likely come in the category of discretionary outlays, the part of the budget that Congress controls through annual appropriation bills. Discretionary spending amounted to $1.35 trillion in 2011, 40 percent of total outlays, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But the Budget Control Act which Obama signed last summer imposes limits on discretionary spending. For 2012 and 2013, the caps would keep spending for items other than the Afghanistan war below the 2011 spending level and would limit the growth of those appropriations to about two percent a year from 2014 to 2021, according to the CBO.
Meanwhile entitlement spending – the 40 percent of the budget that goes to Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, and Social Security for the disabled and retired – continues to grow steadily, driven by an aging population.
Obama faces a House of Representatives with 242 Republicans – the most that any Democratic president has had to face since Harry Truman in 1947.
As Truman did in the 1948 presidential campaign, Obama is sure to lambaste the Republican majority as an obstructionist, do-nothing Congress. Republicans are returning fire by saying the House has passed more than two dozen separate job creation bills and the Democratic-controlled Senate hasn’t acted on them.
Cutting red tape in schools??
* Addressing the need for skilled workers, Obama made a proposal that was an echo of one made by President Bill Clinton in his 1996 State of the Union speech, Obama said, “I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people...have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It's time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work."
Tax breaks for companies
don't get me wrong, punish companies for sending jobs oversees, give breaks to those who keep them here. But jobs are lots for several reason - ie. technology [ robots and so forth ] has replaced workers and made some jobs obsolite.
My issue - tax breaks for companies? The rich own companies - so instead of investing in thier own company to get a tax break ??? they just own the company out right. Also, companies have a tax rate of 39% - less taxes means less govn't revenue meaning someone has to pay the difference - who ? middle class and even poor [ thats why we have a tax for everything, gas tax,sales tax, add a 1 cent bed tax on hotels and on & on ].
* Obama also proposed a series of new tax breaks to encourage American companies to manufacture goods in the United States and not in foreign countries. Obama proposal’s to revive American manufacturing comes after more than half a century in which manufacturing’s share of employment has been falling.
Why I believe that his speech is more politics and less subtance: becuase if he really wanted all that he said to work - he "will work" with all sides of the table to make America great [ work now not later, this year not next ]. But it being an election year I doubt he will give up anything that will appear as Republicans care, are working and want the same thing that President Obama wants - a strong Union. If fact many commentors believe he wants to distance himself from congress period, Democrats and Republicans alike - so that he can say " It's them, not me - see I am trying to do something for you ".
** In a time of total political collapse, this State of the Union speech felt more detached from reality than usual. The president promised to "work with anyone in this chamber," but in this election year the chances for agreement on anything serious are tiny. But the long list of proposals that look like they are earnestly offered serves an important political purpose. Before you bash the GOP for doing nothing, you have to make it look like you've made a good faith effort. That's how he hopes to win in the future.
** quoted excerpt from: The Swing States of Our Union Are Strong Obama's tepid election-year State of the Union attempts to lay a trap for Republicans. By John Dickerson| Posted Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, at 1:09 AM ET
* quote excerpt from :The Swing States of Our Union Are Strong Obama's tepid election-year State of the Union attempts to lay a trap for Republicans. By John Dickerson| Posted Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012, at 1:09 AM ET