You know those that have money and wealth, well they must be the evil ones because they are investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capitalists. They went to school, worked hard, made good decisions, made money and employ people. Democrats like to use wealth envy as a springboard for hatred, much like their whole platform. Make those that achieve, that drive the economy, that applied themselves are now portrayed as the evil rich.
This country was founded on the basis that anyone can be as great as they want to be. Not on taking money away from those that have earned it. This administration's attitude for the successful is very concerning.
Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. - Ayn Rand
Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. - Ayn Rand
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
AP: Declaring "We want our money back," President Barack Obama wants to slap a tax on banks to recoup the money that the American public spent on bailing out large financial institutions on the brink of collapse. The president said Thursday his goal is not to punish banks, but rather to prevent them from a behavior of excess, including new employee bonuses he called "obscene." In brief comments at the White House, Obama took a deeply populist tone. He said: "My commitment is to the taxpayer."
In a brief appearance with advisers at the White House, Obama branded the latest round of bank bonuses as "obscene." But he said his goal was to prevent such excesses in the future, not to punish banks for past behavior.
The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. "If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers," Obama said.
Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.
The president's tone was emphatic and populist, capitalizing on public antipathy toward Wall Street. With the sharp words, he also tried to deflect some of the growing skepticism aimed at his own economic policies as unemployment stubbornly hovers around 10 percent.
The proposed 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of large financial institutions would apply only to those companies with assets of more than $50 billion — a group estimated at about 50. Administration officials estimate that 60 percent of the revenue would come from the 10 biggest ones.
They would have to pay up even though many did not accept any taxpayer assistance and most that did have repaid the infusions.
Obama said big banks had acted irresponsibility, taken reckless risk for short-term profits and plunged into a crisis of their own making. He cast the struggle ahead as one between the finance industry and average people.
"We are already hearing a hue and cry from Wall Street, suggesting that this proposed fee is not only unwelcome but unfair, that by some twisted logic, it is more appropriate for the American people to bear the cost of the bailout rather than the industry that benefited from it, even though these executives are out there giving themselves huge bonuses," Obama said.
He renewed his call for a regulatory overhaul of the industry and scolded bankers for opposing the tighter oversight in legislation moving through Congress.
"What I'd say to these executives is this: Instead of setting a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I'd suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibility," Obama said.
At issue is the net cost of the fund initiated by the Bush administration to help financial institutions get rid of soured assets. The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) has expanded to help auto companies and homeowners.
Insurer American International Group, the largest beneficiary at nearly $70 billion, would have to pay the tax. But General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC, whose $66 billion in government loans are not expected to be repaid fully, would not.
Administration officials said financial institutions were both a significant cause of the crisis and chief beneficiaries of the rescue efforts, should bear the brunt of the cost.
Bankers did not hide their objections.
"Politics have overtaken the economics," said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, a group representing large Wall Street institutions. "This is a punitive tax on companies that repaid TARP in full or never took TARP."
Even before details came out, Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., said: "Using tax policy to punish people is a bad idea."
Obama is trying to accelerate terms that require the president to seek a way to recoup unrecovered money in 2013, five years after the law was enacted.
So far, the Treasury has given $247 billion to more than 700 banks. Of that, $162 billion has been repaid and banks have paid an additional $11 billion in interest and dividends.
In Congress, Democrats embraced Obama's proposal while Republicans rejected it.
"I think it is entirely reasonable to say that the industry that, A, caused these problems more than any other and, B, benefited from the activity, should be contributing," said Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
But GOP Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, who's on Frank's committee, called it a "job-killing initiatives that will further cripple the economy by increasing fees passed on to consumers and small businesses, while reducing consumer credit."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chief executives of the biggest U.S. health insurance companies were called to testify about industry practices before a congressional hearing examining coverage, costs and claim denials. U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich sent letters dated Wednesday to Aetna Inc, Cigna Corp, Humana Inc, UnitedHealth Group Inc and WellPoint Inc, among others.
The letter asks the companies' CEOs to testify at a September 17 hearing about "the nature, cost/benefit, and impact of administrative measures and protocols used by the health insurance industry to determine coverage." Kucinich, a Democrat, chairs the domestic policy subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the House of Representatives. A copy of the letter sent to Aetna CEO Ronald Williams was obtained by Reuters.
A congressional source told Reuters similar letters were sent to the other CEOs. Spokespeople for Aetna, Wellpoint, UnitedHealth and Cigna confirmed they had received the letter. A Humana spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. Last week, other lawmakers in the House and Senate sent requests to major health insurers seeking information about industry practices. The requests come amid a tumultuous debate over larger efforts to reform the U.S. healthcare system, with Democrats pushing for more competition and access to affordable health insurance plans, among other changes.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."
Pelosi: Health Insurance Companies ‘Villains’ in Debate
“They are the villains in this,” Pelosi said Thursday of the insurance companies. “They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening.” Pelosi’s broadside comes as she tries to pull her fractious Caucus together after a compromise that Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) struck Wednesday with conservative members of his panel set off howls among liberals.
The Speaker on Thursday morning gave what aides in attendance described as a fiery speech to House Democrats, urging them to take the fight to insurance companies over the five-week recess scheduled to begin Friday. She then laid out the line of attack to reporters gathered outside her office, blasting the industry as “immoral.”
“They have had a good thing going for a long time at the expense of the American people and the health of our country,” she said. “But our Members have to go out there ready to take on a big special interest that has not made our country healthier and has made the cost spiral upward and for whom that is coming to an end. This is the fight of our lives.”
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he isn’t worried about Republicans appearing to side with insurance companies as a result of opposing the Democrats’ bill.
“They certainly aren’t lily-white in this fight,” Boehner said at a press event. “But most Americans like the health insurance they have. They all think it costs too much, and I understand that. But there’s nothing in [the Democrats’] proposal that would drive down costs.”
The Energy and Commerce Committee resumed its long-delayed markup of health care legislation Thursday, with Waxman planning to wrap it up sometime Friday. He warned that the markup could go until about 1 a.m. before resuming later Friday.
A tax surcharge on wealthy Americans to pay for health care reform is a "legitimate way to go forward," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on NBC's Meet The Press. The tax surcharge provision included in a House proposal is one of the most controversial options on the table and is opposed by Republicans and some Democrats. The Senate Finance Committee has proposed taxing medical benefits provided by employers, an idea opposed by President Barack Obama. "He's reluctant to move in that direction," she said. Sebelius noted that much of the money needed to fund the health care overhaul will come from cutting ineffective and inefficient programs. "In all the plans, more than half the money to pay for the proposal is already in the system," she said.
First, I want you to consider the proposition that the Democrats have no real desire to see the American economy improve in the next two years. No, I'm not being mean-spirited. I'm acknowledging politicians for what they are – and what they are is absolutely dedicated to is the preservation of their own power.
Democrat strategists know that if Bush's economic stimulus plan does actually work – and if your economy shows a steady improvement through 2004 – then Democrats can kiss off any chance at legislative gains, let alone the presidency, in the 2004 elections. Democrats desperately want a failing economy they can blame on the Republicans in next year's contest.
So … just how does one go about torpedoing an economic stimulus plan that just might work? The Democratic leaders have been going through their playbook and have decided that class warfare is the way to go. Take advantage of the open sewer of economic ignorance that flows through America's consciousness (thanks to generations of government education) and cast this as a grand battle between the evil rich and the glorious poor.
Does class warfare work? Does a hog love slop? There is an underlying current of animosity – even hatred – for those who are perceived as being rich that is far more intense than you might expect.
The left has mastered the dark art of conducting a class-warfare campaign. First and foremost, you must dispel any notion that those who are rich actually got that way through hard work. Americans at all income levels admire hard work and almost universally believe that those who work hard should be rewarded. To make the class-warfare efforts bear fruit, the left must convince the middle- and lower-income Americans that they are the only ones who are really working for their income.
This is why you constantly hear Democrats refer to lower- and middle-income earners as "working people" or "working families." The unspoken premise here is that if you are in the upper-income levels, you don't work. You're not one of the "working people." To the class warrior, the only true work is work that is done with muscle. Working with your brain isn't work.
Former House Minority Leader – now, presidential candidate – Richard Gephardt reinforces this "the rich don't work" idea with his reference to high-achievers as "those who won life's lottery." The message is clear: The rich didn't earn their wealth, they were just lucky. They put down their dollar, just like everyone else, and the machine gave them the winning numbers. None other than CBS' Dan Rather is now bandying about this "won life's lottery" idea. Remember, though, there is no leftist bias in the mainstream media.
After the class warriors have convinced the middle- and lower-income groups that they are the only ones actually working for their money, their next step is to show them that those horrible Republican tax cuts will actually take money out of their pockets.
In a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution column in opposition to the Bush economic plan, Dean Baker wrote "Bush wants to take $650 billion from the public and give the bulk of it to the richest 1 percent of the country." Note, please, the two key words there: "Take" and "give." The Republicans want to "take" your money and "give" it to the rich.
Here's where that inconceivable economic ignorance nurtured by our government schools comes into play. A tax cut is a cut in tax rates. When payday arrives, the employer takes less money out of the worker's check for federal taxes. No money is being taken from anyone. The money is simply staying in the pocket of the person who earned it.
Then we have the most powerful rhetorical weapon in the class warrior's arsenal. It's the old "richest 1 percent" phrase-grenade. Now far be it from me to meddle with the freedom of the press, but maybe we need a law which says that every time a newspaper or magazine uses that "richest 1 percent" line it also include a paragraph stating that these top 1 percent of income earners actually pay close to 38 percent of all federal income taxes, yet only earn about 17 percent of the income. Only a mind turned to gray goo by years of government education could fail to understand those who pay the most income taxes should gain the most from an income tax cut.
There is some indication that people are actually tiring of the Democrat's class-warfare tactics. After all, don't most people hope to become rich one day too? And when they do reach those rarified income levels, wouldn't they like to keep as much of the money they work for as they can?
Well … not to worry. If the class-warfare thing doesn't work, there's always race.
With international climate talks set to start this week, politicians around the world are looking for ways to get their hands on two things – power and money – all in the name of global warming. It just so happens that a new study has been released by the National Academy of Sciences which suggests that emissions targets should not be set for countries. They should be set for people!
Now here is how that would work. First you figure out how much carbon dioxide our atmosphere can handle. To do this, of course, you would use the same worthless phony computer models these hack scientists and the anti-capitalist crowd have been using for years to develop their fraudulent global warming narrative. You then take the total amount of CO2 our atmosphere can handle and divide it by the number of people in the world. You then have the carbon footprint that every person should be allowed to leave. You then find a way to either seize or extort money from the people who produce more than their fair share of greenhouse gasses.
You do see where this is going, don’t you? Since the fall of the Soviet Union and world communism the anti-capitalist crowd has been looking for another platform from which they could carry on their attacks against economic liberty and the free enterprise system. They found that platform in the environmental movement. The platform was environmentalism; the tactic was the global warming hoax and the weapon was, and is attacks on the world’s achievers. The thought process here is that evil rich people use more CO2 because all of their fancy yachts and private jets, big houses and fossil-fueled cars … therefore they would probably emit more than their “fair share” of CO2 and be forced to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions. It doesn’t matter what country you are from, only that you are richer than the average citizen of the world.
One of the study’s authors, Shoibal Chakravarty of the Princeton Environment Institute, says that this isn’t necessarily a limousine-and-yacht tax on the rich, but he did not rule it out: “We are not by any means proposing that. If some country finds a way of doing that, it’s great.”
This is a direct attack to the heart of America. It’s a way for the left to bring America down to the level of the rest of the world. Don’t laugh this off. Would you have thought one year ago that our government would now own General Motors and Citigroup, and that nationalization of our banks was imminent? Besides … and I say this with the highest level of love for my fellow Americans … we are now a country of government-educated idiots that can’t see the dangers facing us. We’re going to lose this great 200-year-plus experiment in economic liberty and freedom based on the rule of law rather than the rule of man because too many Americans got lazy and started looking for the easy way out. I suppose there will be someone around to write a final history of the great American experience when this grand adventure is over. I just hope they have the guts or the understanding to place the blame where it lies … the idiotic idea of turning our most precious assets, our children, over to the government – the political class – to be educated. The government education establishment in this country has delivered to us exactly what it proposed … generations of government educated myrmidons who are fit to be good employees and government subjects, and not much more.
Something else for you to think about: When you take the world’s population as a whole, pretty much anyone living in the United States is considered to be “rich.” Remember, the average American defined as living in poverty has a standard of living that exceeds the average European. This new “get the rich” global warming idea is aimed at accomplishing one thing … bringing the hated United States down.
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said. The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.
We are just rushing head on towards becoming a poorer nation.
