The terror of Obama’s reign has just begun

I hadn’t even thought of this, but it’s very, very important. In addition to the census now under the control of The One, there’s a good chance that the new low-income tax cuts being put forth will allow more than 50% of voting-eligible Americans to not pay taxes, thereby securing the socialist future of our country.

And you weren’t scared to elect this guy.

Comments

  1. I first heard about this idea from talk show host Mark Levin last Sept.(?), and it was sobering indeed. I thought he said we already have over 40% of eligible voters living tax free in America.

    Of course getting all of these eligible voters to go vote is key. But don’t forget they get some extra votes from those who vote 2 or more times.

    Once Govt. health care gets thrown into the picture, it is pretty much over. The government will own the majority of the voters. You can see why everything we do right now has such dire consequences.

  2. That’s what happens when the middle class gets eliminated. You are left only with the haves and the have-nots.

  3. J. Strupp says:

    …the most dissappointng thing about these tax cuts is that, given our current situation, they are horribly ineffecient in fixing the problem. We need to invest every penny possible back into the economy. These cuts will fall way short of supplying any viable impact because they will only be used to shore up personal balance sheets.

  4. So Capper, are you a have or a have not?

  5. Randy in Richmond says:

    Capper
    I couldn’t agree more. The bigger government gets and the more it does for the people the less a middle class we will have. November 4th of last year accelerated us in that direction and the past three weeks have put the pedal to the metal. I love being a ‘have’.

  6. Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, COUPLED WITH HIS UNPRECEDENTED WHITE HOUSE TAKEOVER OF DECENNIAL CENSUS TAKING FROM THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited ‘after-the-fact’ short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addressed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment ‘citizen’ is not sufficient. A ‘President’ MUST BE an Article 2 ‘natural born citizen’ AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.

  7. Ted, that’s the fully debunked conspiracy talk. Obama is not ineligible. He’s dangerous, but not ineligible.

  8. “Have” is a relative term under the neo-maxists. It can all be taken away. I’ve found that, in general, the younger generations have a poor grasp of civics and economics. A failure of our educational system or an intentional result?

  9. Leapin,

    I’ve found that older generations have a poor grasp of economics as well. I happen to be rather young, yet I’ve noticed that the vast majority of Americans older than me have trouble understanding even the most basic economic principles. This isn’t a knock on them. I think that most Americans feel that economics is terribly boring (I have noticed a general slowdown of commentary on this blog since Cindy started directing more attention towards this subject). Unfortunately, I also believe that most Americans feel that the causes of major economic catastophies have been solved.

    You know, socialisn and communism has failed, capitalism is king of the world and the great moderation is underway. While capitalism is the best economic model the world has ever created, I think we’ll see, first hand, that we have yet to conquer major financial and economic crisis once and for all.

  10. Tinkerbell says:

    Dear JS,

    I agree with you that we have yet to resolve economic stability and sustainable growth.

    Your generalizations about older Americans having a poor grasp of economics are unfounded; you supply as evidence that there were fewer commentary posts on economic topics… perhaps there are other factors at work? such as the weekend? such as it’s all been said before?

    Evidence that older Americans do understand economics can be found from their personal finances including budgeting, property ownership, minimal use of credit, living within one’s means to understanding that frugality in government trumps foreign interests owning our budget deficit, our American soil, and our descendent’s financial futures.

    Too many younger citizens are in the mindset of “live for today, pay for it tomorrow”. Only tomorrow has become eons.

    Again, I agree with you that we have yet to resolve economic stability and sustainable growth. Perhaps the problem is not entirely economic? But economics is just one symptom of a larger disorder? A disorder of priorities which has us categorizing oursleves a HAVES or HAVENOTS? Perhaps emphasizing personal character would help? Perhaps adding a degree of pride in hard work and self-sufficiency in the mix will help? Perhaps we need to distinguish between wants/needs, and not purchase things to bandage a wounded sense of self-worth?

    (Does our society have -or- have-not those qualities?)

  11. J. Strupp says:

    Tinkerbell:

    I think I need to clarify my comment. I was referring more to macro vs. microeconomics. I completely agree that older generations have a firm grasp on personal economics, more so, than my generation of buy now, pay for it later. Whether or not this grasp of personal finance was actually applied in the last few decades is something up for debate. Your statement on these generation differences, on average, is very true.

    My comment points more towards our general view (regardless of generation) that we have undergone “a great moderation” (if I may steal one from our current Fed. Chairman) due to the “victory” of capitalist societies over the tyranny of communism and the flaws of socialism. I think statements like, “we know what caused the Great Depression so we can avoid another one in the future”, is a false comfort for a society who just happened to replicate the same mistakes of the 1920’s, in the beginning of the 21st century. History blames President Hoover for trying to balance the budget into the face of economic crisis, yet half of Congress is currently attempting to trim as much spending out the present day stimulus package in the name of…..you guessed it…..fiscal restraint. Have we learned that much?

    I say no. Will we fall pray to some of the same mistakes we made in the late 20’s? Maybe, maybe not. But there’s no question in my mind that we, as a society, have removed ourselves from the lessons history has given us on how to avoid economic and financial crisis.

    I think you will see this subject gain more interest in the coming months.

  12. Tinkerbell says:

    Given the current economic situation, what would you think of the ability of a simple 2-part plan to provide some measure of economic stability?

    1) Some families would prefer to not have to take mandatory withdrawals from their 401Ks/IRAs but would prefer to leave the money in their accounts and hopefully ride the market back up. (without penalty)

    2) Some families would prefer to tap their 401Ks/IRAs early to pay off their mortgage (on their only home / residence). (without penalty)

    Do you see potential for these measures providing some modicom of economic stability on the proverbial Main Street?

    And I believe this could be done with no additional cost to taxpayers, no additional budget deficit to administer this?

    Perhaps this subject will also gain interest in the coming months?

  13. J. Strupp says:

    Perhaps it will.

    However, I have a slight issue with the no penalty withdrawl provision. Given the depth of the housing crisis, I am concerned that “no penalty” withdrawls from IRA’s/401K’s will not generate near enough capital to curb the amount of creditors upside-down on their mortgages. I would be supportive of principle write downs for mortgages rather than the no penalty withdrawls from investment savings plans. Obviously, writing down the principle of thousands of mortgages (especially mortgages wrapped up on larger securities) is much more complicated than meets the eye but it will achieve roughly the same goal without making consumers tap into investment plans. Also, what do you for people who have pension plans rather than IRA’s/401K’s or no investment plan at all?

    All and all, I think the way to get the best bang for your buck at this point, is to make sure Main St. stays employed, thus having a source of income to pay there mortgage payments AND stabilize overall consumption (even if this means that consumption settles around 60% of GDP, down from about 70% of GDP). If we keep the flood of unemployment rising, these problems keep worsening in the near term.

  14. J. Strupp says:

    One other comment on this issue Tink,

    I think most creditors would still take the path of least resistence when dealing with the mortgage issue. If you are upside down on your mortgage and feel that your equity will take years to appreciate enough to get your money back, most people will choose to default on the mortgage rather than use their retirement savings to stay in the home. It remains a moral hazard issue regardless of the availability of retirement funds.

    I think write downs would go a long way to slowing the pace of mortgage default rates by reducing mortgage PAYMENTS, improving personal balance sheets and freeing up disposable income to consume in the broader economy.

  15. Tinkerbell says:

    Dear J-S,

    You missed half of the issue, and inappropriately personalized the other half.

    The half you missed: There exist some older Americans who would rather defer withdrawals from their 401Ks/IRAs (without penalty) hoping to ride the market back up, and not take mandatory withdrawals.

    The half you personalized: There exist some families who may want to pay off their mortgages with illiquid savings, such as 401Ks/IRAs (without penalty)… families who worked at GM, Harley, Heinemanns, Schwartz Books, Circuit City, etc… already without those jobs you say you’d like ’em to keep. I would not think they would be upside-down in their mortgages. But if they suddenly have no present source of income, then reducing mortgage payments would still be too expensive. Perhaps making their savings available to them may keep them in their homes.

    I see a balance of sorts: those who want to withdraw from 401Ks/IRAs could… and those dollars, or a portion thereof, would be offset by those who want to leave their money in.

    I see this as more equitable than asking mortgage companies to write down loans (as you suggest) while people may still have hundreds of thousands in retirement accounts, which they may use to retire their debt. Home prices may stabilize. As cash comes into mortgage companies from these repaid/prepaid loans, the mortgage companies would have this money to lend to others. This may free up credit and get the ball rolling… sustainable growth.

    Regarding those who may not be invested in 401k/IRA accounts but rather rely solely on pensions, well, this plan does not address them. But I believe it is the best plan I personally have heard so far.

  16. Tink I didn’t miss the other half. I only have so much room to write so I focused on one issue.

    I re-read your previous comment and see that you are focusing on investers who have the ability to pay off their mortgages in full by freeing up well established investment savings rather than someone who is looking to tap into their savings to cover mortgage payments.

    My mistake. I spoke to a different group of people. I didn’t read your comment very carefully.