"...For Purposes of Fairness."
Obama concedes that cutting the capital gains tax actually increased revenues, but says that he’d raise it anyway for the sake of “fairness.” Because hedge fund mangers make too much money.
It’s amazing that Obama isn’t embarrassed to make such economically illiterate, down-right socialist, comments in public. I mean, he concedes that cutting the capital gains tax has increased revenues but then actually manages to suggest that the tax cuts have lost the government money by invoking the specter of borrowed funds from China.
Obama exposed himself as completely clueless on capital gains taxes, and showed that he wants government to act to redistribute wealth not because it’s efficient but because he wants life to be “fair”. He didn’t comprehend Gibson’s repeated reminders that revenues increased when those taxes dropped, and that meant more wealth to redistribute.
Obama’s convoluted capital gains tax answer was a brutal reminder to folks like me that he is indeed a redistributionist, and someone who seems to see the tax system as a way to decide what people “deserve” to have and keep. Ugh. Of course, Clinton isn't much better, but that Obama answer was dreadful.
Obama and Clinton both see the US tax code not as a tool to be used to generate the revenues needed to fund the legitimate functions of government, but as a tool to be used to punish the rich for being too successful, and to redistribute their money into all the Democrats' vote-buying entitlement programs.
In their world, every dollar a rich person makes takes a dollar out of the pocket of a poor person. And, the sooner we confiscate all that "extra" money from the rich and hand it to the poor (in exchange for their votes), the sooner we can get rid of poverty.
Because nothing says "We're going to end poverty!" quite like a policy that tells people, "Don't worry about all the lifestyle choices you've made that have kept you poor. You just keep on keeping on. And, we'll continue to steal from the rich to get you your food stamps and cigarette money."
Much in the same way that nothing screams "We care about our children's education!" quite like a policy that says "Grades? Who cares about grades? Hell, we don't even care if you learn enough in school to write your name in the dirt with a stick. Competency testing for teachers? Who needs it? We're going to mandate a living wage of $40/hour for you once you get that diploma that basically says you made it through four years of listening to teachers who can't do eighth grade math or form complete sentences."
Man, I can't wait 'til November.
I'm gonna have to stock up on popcorn.
UPDATE: Just wanted to add this one from jdub, posting at Ace of Spades HQ, which sums up Obamanomics quite succinctly.
The reason Obama can’t keep his story straight is that to him, ultimately, things like economics and property rights are secondary to the necessity of empowering the state. It’s nothing so coherent as a philosophy; it’s a grubby, grasping impulse which justifies, a priori, the lie it demands at any given moment.
So when he wants to sound like a postideological technocrat, taxes must be raised to increase revenues. But when that ground evaporates, he has to return to the traditional democractic playbook and extol the virtues of class war and envy.
It is only important that taxes be raised; it is not important why.
UPDATE: Obligatory pictorial commentary. Yeah, I know, about as original as drawing a Hitler mustache on a Bush poster at a G8