Only a Liberal…

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Oh, that’s just ridiculous! How could anyone want to do something like that?

From Reuters: Barack Obama announced that in order to help pay the huge tax bill he’s charging on Uncle Sam’s credit card, he’s gonna reduce the tax deduction that rich people get to claim when making charitable contributions. They used to be able to deduct 35% of their charitable donations: now they will only be able to deduct 28%. He actually accidentally supports the argument for a fair tax, but he supports both sides of an argument all the time. As you might expect, charity groups are worried this will decrease giving.

Obama’s response… “If it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that that shouldn’t be the determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.”

Mr. President, your assumptions are naive and irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what someone’s reason is for giving charity. The point of the tax credit is to create incentive to make charitable contributions. If you increase the cost of a charitable donation by one cent, you will decrease the amount of donations. Its just economics. Perhaps it won’t decrease very much, but to claim it won’t decrease is preposterous.

“It’s not going to cripple them. They’ll still be well-to-do,” he said.

When Obama says “them,” he is referring to rich people. You are certainly correct, Mr. President. You won’t and can’t cripple rich people by taxing them. Taxing rich people more doesn’t hurt rich people. It hurts anyone that rich people give their money to, like small businesses and CHARITIES. Barack Obama does not care if increasing taxes on the rich will decrease charitable contributions. Attacking the rich is more important to him.
It is obvious that Obama is relentless in his pursuit to attack the rich/productive members of society regardless of the casualties. Arguments by Charlie Gibson and others pointing out that increasing the capital gains tax will actually decrease federal tax revenue doesn’t penetrate the socialist ideology of Barack Obama. Allow me to remind you of their conversation:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased.  The government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.  So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair…

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not.  [emphasis added]

Here are the key points to pay attention to.

1. Gibson cites empirical evidence citing the downside to increasing capital gains tax. Obama responds by talking about how much money 50 people made. This shows that he thinks his job is to tax the rich, not optimize federal tax revenue.
2. Obama then points out that making money off the stock market allows rich people to pay a lower tax rate than secretaries. What this observation fails to point out is that doesn’t mean the rich person is paying a lower amount of tax: just a lower rate.
3. Obama says its not fair that 50 people are paying lower tax rates than secretaries. Not lower taxes: lower tax rates. What he’s saying is its unfair that some people are making more money off the stock market than others. Are the secretaries prevented from making money off the stock market? No. So the hedge fund managers must have some expertise that allows them to make money off the market that the secretaries do not have. That means that the only thing Obama could be saying is not fair is that one person is making more money than someone else. He believes equality means equal outcome, rather than equal opportunity.
4. Gibson reiterates the historical truths of capital gains tax changes. Our President, the most powerful man in the world, ostensibly the best candidate for that office in all of America, responds with the old “maybe, maybe not” argument.

This guy is dangerously ignorant. I take that back… I can’t be sure he’s ignorant. I can believe he’s aware of everything I’m arguing for. I don’t think he cares. He has formed conclusions based on ideology, and ideology trumps evidence in his mind. He may not be ignorant, but he certainly is dangerous. I’m not the first to say this, but I predict he will either be impeached for his incompetence, or lose in a Reagan-esque landslide in 2012. You can fool all of the people some of the time…