On The Road To Socialism? We've Arrived! - more Barack Bashing from IBD

Your sources are hilarious, descending to the IBD editorial page after you were ridiculed for citing the WSJ's AEI/Hoover-gorged pseudopinions. Next stop: THE NO SPIN ZONE.

What a pity.

And the economy was working so well under George Bush.

You hopin' for Joe the Plumber in 2012?

This is funny!

On The Road To Socialism? We've Arrived!

By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN | Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT

"[Obama's] budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies."

Isn't that what elections are about?

"It is a declaration of war on the right."

So?

"Barack has no mandate for this."

And George W. did for his tax cuts after LOSING the 2000 election?

"He was even behind John McCain when the decisive event that gave him the presidency occurred — the September collapse of Lehman Bros. and the market crash."

So what?

"That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II."

That's what happens when you put the wars on the budget, isn't it?

"Add that 28% of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12% spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40% of the economy in 2009."

So?

"Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8% in the fourth quarter, but 6.2%."

Exactly why the spending is needed.

"Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold?"

Apparently a lot of people, as it is in their interest.

"As Americans save only a pittance and have lost — in the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets — $15 trillion to $20 trillion since 2007, how can the people provide the feds with the needed money?"

Whose fault is that?

"In his speech to Congress, Obama promised new investments in energy, education and health care. Every kid is going to get a college degree. We're going to find a cure for cancer. Who is going to pay for all this? The top 2%..."

By paying an extra $30,000 in tax on every $1 million earned.

"the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats."

Right after the election he didn't win and therefore by your logic had no mandate for.

"But the top 5% of income earners already pay 60% of income taxes, while the bottom 40% pay nothing."

So what?

"Those paying a federal tax rate of 35% will see it rise to near 40%"

It's 36% to 39%.

"Two-thirds of small businesses are taxed at the same rate as individuals."

Meaning they're S Corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, or limited liability companies and they don't pay corporate income tax, which would make their tax burden even higher.

"Consider what this means to the owner of a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles open from noon to midnight, where a husband and wife each put in 80 hours a week. At year's end, the couple find they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary."

Meaning that they will pay $15,000 extra in taxes.

"What is the Obama-Schwarzenegger tax take on that salary? Their U.S. tax rate will have hit 39.6%. Their California income tax will have hit 9.55%."

California tax is deductible from federal tax.

"Medicare payroll taxes on the proprietor as both employer and salaried employee will be $14,500. Social Security payroll taxes for the proprietor as both employer and employee will be $13,243."

And they'll get medicare and social security when they retire.

"In short, U.S. and state income and payroll taxes will consume half of all the pair earned for some 8,000 hours of work."

Not quite half.

"From that ravaged salary they must pay a state sales tax of 8.25%, gas taxes for the 50-mile commute, and tens of thousands in property taxes on both their restaurant and home."

And so do the poor, and why do they live 50 miles away?

"And, after being pilloried by politicians for having feasted in the Bush era, they are now told the tax deduction they get for contributing to the church is to be cut 20%, while millions of Obama voters, who paid no U.S. income tax at all, will be getting a tax cut — i.e., a fat little check — in April."

Yes - BAD POOR PEOPLE! BAD!

"Any wonder native-born Californians are fleeing the Golden Land?"

And where are they going? Certainly not to low-tax states like Alabama, with the highest illiteracy rate in the country.

"Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a "lead indicator" of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying?"

It's HIS FAULT!

"Having fallen every month since Obama's election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic."

Having fallen every month since this crisis started 18 months ago, under George I.

"The president says he is gearing up for a fight on his budget. Good. Let's give him one."

Like Herbert Hoover did?

I do not like Buchanan. He's a John Bircher, among other nasty things, but, I agree with this article. Too bad Buchanan is the messenger of this message. I strive to be a centerist, so it ticks me off that I'm agreeing with the far right, not a place I want to be.

"Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar?"

"Who is going to pay for all this? The top 2%, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5% of income earners already pay 60% of income taxes, while the bottom 40% pay nothing.
Those paying a federal tax rate of 35% will see it rise to near 40% and will lose a fifth of the value of their deductions for taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions."

"In short, U.S. and state income and payroll taxes will consume half of all the pair earned for some 8,000 hours of work."

BTW my grandmother was born in California in 1919 and she fled. A native-born Californian fled!

To Chelsea.

I'm sorry thought this was a RE site. Didn't realize it morphed into redstate.com.

Steve, you and I have certainly disagreed on a number of things but I think you are spot-on here and the tinge of snarkiness is appreciated.

Topper:

Agree Bush jr was one of the worst Presidents ever. But, because Bush sucked, that doesn't make Obama great. I wish we had better choices. For me, the 2008 election was chose between someone who is an unknown quantity with almost no track record or a fossil.

Unfortunately, I think our choices for Pres are coming from the extremes of both parties & I don't see that changing real soon.

stevejhx...what was chelsea like when your grandmother moved there. that would make a terrific story.. Regarding Obama...the country voted and this is what we want... i hope and pray he's going to get it right.

dwell,

bipartisanship is great, moderates are geniuses, blah blah blah. why is it taken for granted that the middle is somehow the best place to be? isn't the point to be smart and to be correct, not to be in the middle?

stevef, did you really just compare barack obama to adolf hitler? stay classy.

so patrick j. buchanan, the apartheid-supporting protectionist who believes that the united states should have made peace with hitler instead of defeating him in world war ii is now stevef's guru? incredible.

that article is incoherent and ridiculous. there are plenty of smart critics of president obama and you have to go dredge up buchanan?

Snarky is a speciality of mine. ;0

Just all of this conservative crap (from the "liberal" media, remember!) is nonsense: it's not that radical a policy shift, and it is, in fact, in terms of spending, necessary.

Republicans only have one issue - taxes. Unfortunately, increasing taxes on people who make over $250,000 doesn't have a lot of traction.

And the newfangled "religion" on spending isn't working, either. Bridge-to-nowhere people.

Happy,

So, you think you know what is smart & correct?

I think extremes in government are bad.

Krugman was right: intellectual Beavis and Buttheads:

"how can the people provide the feds with the needed money?" -> "At year's end, the couple find they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary."

Compare and contrast.

Criticism is a good thing. Ideas must be able to stand up to challenge, but these statements don't have a whole lot of truthiness to them. Disagreeing is fine, but at least be honest.

i think each of us should figure out, for ourselves and together, who's smart and who's right. i don't think we should just look for the so-called middle of the spectrum (as if there is one political spectrum that runs neatly from left to right) and stick ourselves there. we have complex problems that require complex answers, not simply sticking the middle.

"what was chelsea like when your grandmother moved there."

An Italian slum.

Happy,

I'm not saying to be a mindless dolt & just choose the middle. Of course things are more complex. Let's just agree to disagree. I don't want to feel that I have to be silenced on this board because I'm outnumbered. I do not like Obama's plan, but I know many do & that's OK. I hope there's room here for minority opinions.

dwell - minority opinions are appreciated.

Thanks Waverly.

It would be a heck of alot easier for me to just agree with everyone, but, I'd prefer to voice my opinion, even if it's not popular.

Can everyone just start reporting this crap as abuse? I am guilty of taking the bait on occasion as well, but if you want to join a politics board you should.

Hardly abusive, malthus, and certainly related to the economy.

Obama keep saying it only affects the riches but it certainly affects the middle class family.
Taking away Student Subsidy loan, Funding welfare fund health insurance at the cost of small business's payroll tax, etc will destroy the middle class and untouch the super riches nor the bottom feeders.

I don't fit into the super rich category but this gov't needs to look for diff source of income instead of keep taxing and taxing the riches before they start outsourcing, creating even higher UE rate.

97% of the taxes paid by only 50% of the population?
3% paid by the other half.

Something is definitely wrong with this picture.

steveF :
Hitler promised change too and boy did the Germans get change....:)

The German's didn't change. You don't suddenly change your values to become mass murderers. That's who they were; Hitler only focused their pre-existing nature in an organized manner.

happyrenter:
so patrick j. buchanan, the apartheid-supporting protectionist who believes that the united states should have made peace with hitler instead of defeating him in world war ii ...

Need help on these:
Support of apartheid ?
Protectionist - I'm not sure this is a sin, maybe a policy you can logically disagree with, but hardly follows after calling him out for supporting apartheid
US should have made peace with Hitler - I'm interested to see where this is stated, as I am about the support of apartheid. I ask because I truly want to know because certainly I know Buchanan as protectionist but if there's truly something about him outrageous (vs. just objecting to someone on the other side of the political spectrum) let's see the truth about it.

"97% of the taxes paid by only 50% of the population?
3% paid by the other half."

Exactly and this didn't start with Obama. How long has it been like this?

IMO, the 3% can't afford to pay tax because they don't earn enough & they don't earn enough because there are no jobs for them that pay a decent living wage, and why is that? Globalism, nafta, outsourcing. I'd like to see an administration encourage manufacturing, so that this 3% can earn a decent living wage. Teach someone to fish, don't give them a fish.

Where did this idea of outsourcing originate? I think it has totally screwed us over as a nation. Not saying we should be protectionist, just that we should be more productive in manufacturing goods.

"Hardly abusive, malthus, and certainly related to the economy."

Fine. So I should start posting several threads per day with links to articles by Lyndon Larouche and Ralph Nader because they relate to the "economy" and thus in some way to NY real estate? And throw in a couple of references to various mass-murderers and tyrants to boot?

stevejhx:
"Consider what this means to the owner of a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles open from noon to midnight, where a husband and wife each put in 80 hours a week. At year's end, the couple find they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary."
Meaning that they will pay $15,000 extra in taxes.

So the couple earns $500K together, $250K each. They work 80 hours a week, so assuming no extra for overtime, they earn $125K each for a regular 40 hour week but we all know that our hours after a certain level (40, 50, etc. are at a premium just in terms of what is given up in life otherwise). They also have their business at risk and no guarantee on the levels they'll earn. They are also responsible for employing other people, so they are important to the economy and others rely on them.

So perhaps when $500K is thrown out as making them look rich, that isn't quite fair. We want people to work hard in this country and we want entrepreneurs and small businesses to support growth. So there is a point, I don't know what that is, is it an ""extra"" $15K in penalty?, on top of the "base" amount they pay of state and federal taxes, on top of the absurd regulatory environment and government intrusion and sense of entitlement in California, that causes them to think there's a better, less onerous way to make a living, even if that means less money and they are no longer an employer?

Sure, its just an "extra" $15K they pay, just a little "extra" burden on the people who make it easy for everyone else.

dwell:
they don't earn enough because there are no jobs for them that pay a decent living wage, and why is that? Globalism, nafta, outsourcing. I'd like to see an administration encourage manufacturing, so that this 3% can earn a decent living wage. Teach someone to fish, don't give them a fish.

Dwell, exactly what, or should I say specifically what, do you recommend doing?

pat buchanan's book on why britain and the united states should have come to an accomodation with hitler:

Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World
by Patrick J. Buchanan

pat buchanan's support for apartheid:

Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

there's a lot more:

Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist concoction.

Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was "running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87)

Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests -- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were "Americans first" -- and repeatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)

The Buchanan '96 campaign's World Wide Web site included an article blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad -- and alleging that Foster and Hillary Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 2/21/96.)

"Rail as they will about 'discrimination,' women are simply not endowed by nature with the same measures of single-minded ambition and the will to succeed in the fiercely competitive world of Western capitalism." (syndicated column, 11/22/83)

After Sen. Carol Moseley Braun blocked a federal patent for a Confederate flag insignia, Buchanan wrote that she was "putting on an act" by associating the Confederacy with slavery: "The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance," Buchanan asserted. "How long is this endless groveling before every cry of 'racism' going to continue before the whole country collectively throws up?" (syndicated column, 7/28/93)

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)

White House adviser Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)

In a memo to President Nixon, Buchanan suggested that "integration of blacks and whites -- but even more so, poor and well-to-do -- is less likely to result in accommodation than it is in perpetual friction, as the incapable are placed consciously by government side by side with the capable." (Washington Post, 1/5/92)

so can we not bandy pat buchanan about as a mainstream kind of guy?

gleeclub:

I recommend that government encourage manufacturing on US soil. Particularly small & medium size manufacturing. This creates jobs. By encourage, I mean tax incentives. This encourages the entrepreneur to start a company, which will create jobs. I would particularly like to see a program encouraging manufacturing green products.

We have lost so much manufacturing here because the jobs have gone overseas. So, for a majority of Americans, the only job available is a minimum wage service job.

Buchanan is fascistic, that's why it bugs me when I agree with him.

How come nobody ever talkd about the good things Hitler did? Its always Holocaust this and Holocaust that...

dwell and gleeclub,

please get your facts straight. "for the majority of americans, the only job available is a minimum wage service job." uh, no.

"on top of the absurd regulatory environment and government intrusion and sense of entitlement in California"

Uhh...what? Not sure this is an accurate statement. Can you support this at all?

Pat Buchanan's social views are a bit to the right of Rush and he hasn't always been too good at hiding this side of him from the public. HR - you can probably spend all day pulling up bone-headed things he's said about some group of people that didn't look just like he does. You haven't even tipped-the berg on him with what you posted.

iceman - I think he was also an artist, if that makes you feel a little better.

Don't think I like taxes, gleeclub, but it's just not that much of a burden. The fictional couple making $500,000 a year living in California, excluding social security and with ZERO deductions would pay about $150,000 in total federal and state tax, or 30% of their income.

Remember that California's income tax is very high because their property tax is very low.

Remember also that they would have a huge 401k tax deferral from their business.

So the Buchanan argument just doesn't hold up.

We have some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world (far lower than Canada's, for instance) and very little to show for it. Our incomes are also skewed much more toward the high end than all other industrialized countries, so much so that in Manhattan, the income distribution is as skewed toward the top as it is in Guatemala.

happyrenter
13 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse
dwell and gleeclub,
please get your facts straight. "for the majority of americans, the only job available is a minimum wage service job." uh, no.

I did not say this, nor did I try to imply this, and I do not believe it. Why was it attributed to me?

I was about to thank you for your references on Buchanan, and now I'm not sure that they weren't made up, not because I think highly (or not) of Buchanan, but because just within a short window of discourse between you and me, you've already made up a quotation and attributed it to me and I've said no such thing.

Can you explain?

Steve,

Would you do a tax (fed, state & local) work up on a Manhattan resident making $500k? Wouldn't they be paying 50%?

Thanks.

gleeclub, I think it was an honest mistake from HR. Dwell's post is the one with the quote and he started it out referencing you. Just a visual blip by HR, nothing menacing.

Maybe my assumption re: majority making minimum wage is wrong.

So, how much must one earn in order to pay income tax?

I'm assuming that 50% of the population does not earn enough to pay income tax. So, if they are not earning enough to pay income tax, how much do they earn? Min Wage?

steve, where are you getting the $15,000 number? Are you assuming the 3 point increase in the marginal rate from 36% to 39%? If so, isn't it only $7500 more, since the higher rate applies only to income above $250k, not to all the income earned?

LICC - that is a good point. It should only be $7,500, unless I am looking at it the wrong way too.

dwell, everyone's situation is different but New York and California taxes are approximately the same.

At $500,000 married filing jointly your federal tax would be about $140,000. I figured about $10,000 in additional tax burden, but how they offset each other, and whether AMT is owed, will change the calculation.

Yes LICC, you're correct.

Thanks Steve.

Thanks Steve. But that's only 28% & I believe I pay more than 28% in fed, state & city. If I only paid 28%, I'd be thrilled. Are you sure? Not that I'm asking you to be my CPA, but I don't think you're right.

I got the $140,000 figure from 3 different tax calculators. If you don't believe me then you should google "effective tax rate calculator" and see what you find.

At the margin you probably do pay more than 28% in fed, city, and state, but the tax rates for married filing jointly are:

$0 - $15,650 - 10% of the amount over $0
$15,650 - $63,700 - $1,565.00 plus 15% of the amount over 15,650
$63,700 - $128,500 - $8,772.50 plus 25% of the amount over 63,700
$128,500 - $195,850 - $24,972.50 plus 28% of the amount over 128,500
$195,850 - $349,700 - $43,830.50 plus 33% of the amount over 195,850
$349,700 - no limit - $94,601.00 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

So up to about $350,000 your top MARGINAL rate is 33%, so your effective rate is much lower. That doesn't even include deductions, exemptions, etc., or the lower capital gains rate.

AMT affects this; how will depend on each person's individual taxes.

Let's say you made $350,000. Your tax would be $43,830.50 + ((350,000 - 195,850)*.33) = $94,700, or 27% of your total income, even though you are in the 33% tax bracket. NYC / NYS would add to that, but (except for AMT) also reduce your federal taxes, reducing your effective federal rate.

Just look at your last year's income tax top line (total wages, salaries, tips) and divide it by your total tax bill. That, however, will include social security and medicare, which WILL take you above 28%. By how much will depend on how much you earn.

He's absolutely correct. We spent a fair amount of time at this income level over the past few years. Our taxes were higher due to AMT and self-employment issues, but not by a large amount.

And actually, the semi-wealthy's tax will probably go up by less than $7,500 because of the correction of AMT and the lowering of other tax rates.

Thanks, Steve. I'll look at last yr's return. Really appreciate it. If my taxes go up $7500, I can live with that. Going up $20K, not so much.

I would have said that last year, not so much this year with all the capital losses I have.

But the changes don't take effect until 2011, read 2012 by the time they all have to be paid.

The election is not so far away so will people focus around moving toward middle of the road politics or just more nastyness?

are you guys saying GoldmanSachs supports socialism? you guys must have been brainwashed in Mars