axis of evil, Barack Obama, Baracks Broken Promises, Big Labor, Business, Democrats, disasterous administration, economy, Federal Spending, few short years, Marxists in the White House, Nanny Government, no governing record, obama 08, Obamacare, Obamanomics, politics, power grab, Progressive Class Warfare, Reject Socialism, Ronald Reagan, Socialist agenda, taxes, thinkprogress, unemployment, wealthiest americans, Winning Elections
April 12, 2012
“”If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from….You make a big election about small things,” ” – Barack Obama 08/28/08
Obama uttered these words just a few short years ago. It was supposedly a charge against politics as usual. Now, he is following the politics as usual playbook to a tee. And as he continues on his “anything but my record” tour he had the gall to say Ronald Reagan would be FOR the Buffet Rule:
President Obama continued his push Wednesday to build support for the Buffett rule by suggesting that Ronald Reagan would’ve backed the plan to set a minimum 30 percent income tax for the wealthiest Americans.“If it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan rule instead of the Buffett rule,” Obama said in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
“I’m not the first president to call for this idea that everyone has to do their fair share,” he said, quoting one speech in which Reagan said it was “crazy” for the rich to be able to use loopholes to get out of paying taxes. “He thought that in America the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so.”
This new talking point was spearheaded by ThinkProgress which put up a video of a speech Reagan gave in 1985 in which he remarked about an executive paying a lower tax rate than his secretary.
Yet Reagan told the story as part of a larger pitch for tax reform. Unlike Obama, Reagan was interested in targeting loopholes so that he could lower rates, to allow people to keep more of their own money.
“Lower, flatter tax rates will give Americans more confidence in the future,” Reagan said in the speech referenced by Obama. “It’ll mean if you work overtime or get a raise or a promotion or if you have a small business and are able to turn a profit, more of that extra income will end up where it belongs — in your wallets, not in Uncle Sam’s pockets.”
And Obama isn’t trying to close any of those loopholes. Whether the rich get richer or the poor get poorer is not the point. It’s getting re-elected, that’s the point. We spend 1,500 billion a year and he’s making speech after speech about a rule that would net 4-5 extra billion a year. What’s the point?
To get re-elected. To get his Socialist vision of our country more widely accepted. And when he is re-elected (and he will be, Romney has no chance) he can then begin pushing for the expiration of ALL the Bush tax cuts, including those on the middle class. That is the only way they can pay for the entitlement state envisioned by Obama and pals. Hell, even that won’t pay for it.
The Buffett rule is really nothing more than a sneaky way for Mr. Obama to justify doubling the capital gains and dividend tax rate to 30% from 15% today. That’s the real spread-the-wealth target. The problem is that this is a tax on capital that is needed for firms to grow and hire more workers. Mr. Obama says he wants an investment-led recovery, not one led by consumption, but how will investment be spurred by doubling the tax on it?
The only investment and hiring the Buffett rule is likely to spur will be outside the United States—in China, Germany, India, and other competitors with much more investment-friendly tax regimes.
Which means we’re screwed.
So now we find out today that not only was Ronald Reagan for tax increases on the rich, Ronald Reagan was pro-abortion. Have you ever stopped to realize this bunch of people, the Democrat Party, Barack Obama, they hate Reagan. They have always hated Reagan. They engage in revisionist history about the Reagan years. But when they need to move their agenda forward, when they need to marshal support for what they’re trying to do, who do they invoke? LBJ? No. Teddy Kennedy? No. JFK? No. RFK? No. Bill Clinton? No. They invoke Ronald Reagan, the beloved Ronaldus Magnus.
Now, what does that tell you? They have to take one of the most popular presidents in history, a Republican, a person with whom they have absolutely nothing in common and without any agreement whatsoever and try to convince the American people Barack Obama is Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan did what Obama’s doing. It is shameless. It is offensive, and, like everything else Obama is doing, it’s a lie.
Exit video: (especially the last half when Stephen Hayes asks “don’t reporters have a job to do?”….why yes they do….to ensure Obama gets re-elected)