For those who have been following this blog for any period of time, they know I despise taxation. However, I am a pragmatist and am willing to bite the bullet on some tax increases for those making over $1 million in exchange for deep cuts in government spending.
Tomorrow, the President is taking his plan to increase taxes on those making over $250,000 to Facebook executives in the San Francisco Bay Area.
However, it seems many Silicon Valley executives oppose the President’s plan, even though the region voted disproportionately for the President’s hope and change agenda in 2008.
Obama won 78% of the vote in Johnny Walker Lindh’s Marin County. He won 85% of the vote in San Franciso County, 74% of San Mateo County, and 70% of Santa Clara County. According to the San Jose Mercury News, workers at Silicon Valley’s top 20 revenue companies donated five times more money to Obama than they did to McCain’s campaign.
What did these executives expect would happen? Hugs and kisses for everyone?
I bet many of them are now “hoping” to “change” their vote in 2012.
When you support a socialist, you should not be surprised when that socialist demands a wealth transfer from the most productive people in society to the least productive.
Quit your whining, Silicon Valley. You voted overwhelmingly for this president. Now suffer the consequences.
Pingback: Caught on webcam – 5 « The-islamic-bak-magic and The Kingdom/themovie for jamie foxx. @the RPG scene. bel bak, belbak
Obama a socialist? His tax plans still look very libertarian compared to conservatives in Europe. The left is angry at Obama for being too centrist and conservative. He’s no socialist — unless Nixon was also a conservative. Or even Reagan — Reagan supported higher rates of taxation than what Obama proposes!
You have to admit that his reluctance to cut entitlement spending and his class warfare rhetoric are the very definition of socialism. At a time when the economy desperately needed action and people needed jobs, his first action was to create a massive new entitlement program via Obamacare.
Then he proposed a debt reduction plan that included $1 million in tax hikes in addition to letting the Bush tax cuts expire (even I missed this cruel slight of hand in his speech). His first two years of office each added more dollars to the debt that any single year of the Bush presidency.
Your point that tax rates are lower is a fair one, but I do not think Obama has any intention of reducing the size of government. I am also fed up with his lawyer-like doublespeak in his speeches (he fooled me twice).
Frankly, I do not trust this President at all. He won’t even follow the recommendations of his own debt commissions.
Well, it’s nothing like socialism. Even European conservatives have higher tax rates and more government programs (and European conservatives do not like socialists!) In the Reagan and Bush (the younger) years we added to the deficit during boom times. The Reagan years were the worst (going from 30% of GDP to 60% of GDP). Obama’s debt increases were during a recession, which at least makes sense — deficits during a boom make no sense, deficits during a recession are defensible.
“Obama’s debt increases were during a recession, which at least makes sense — deficits during a boom make no sense, deficits during a recession are defensible.”
Scott, this is not true. I agree that deficits during a recession are defensible, but the recession ended after Obama’s first six months in office. NBER called the end of the December 2007 recession in June 2009. However, President Obama ran massive deficits in both FY2009 and FY2010. He will also run one again in FY2011.
I understand the need for deficit spending in 2009, but there was no excuse running deficits in 2010 and 2011.
George W. Bush, I believe ran a deficit seven out of his eight years. I believe two of those years included recessions (i.e., 2001 and 2008). So Bush was definitely responsible for overspending as well (His prescription drugs bill really made me mad).
“Well, it’s nothing like socialism.”
Calls for income redistribution are the very definition of socialism. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.;-)
BTW, I accidentally rated your comment down and could not reverse it on my iPhone. So, then I voted it up on my computer to balance it.
Either way, the up and down votes mean nothing….;-)
Maybe this shows that he isn’t playing favorites? I mean, it’s not like he favors certain manufacturers over others, does he? 🙂
Not all, which explains why most of his clean energy loan guarantees for the advanced automotive loan guarantee program went to companies like Ford and Nissan, who haven’t innovated in 30 years. Got to keep those unions happy…