Jerry Della Femina says what so many of us have been thinking:
I made the investment while Obama might have been in high school or smoking dope in college or whatever he was doing. He didn’t make the investment; I did. He didn’t take the risk; I did. He didn’t improve the house; I did. And then in the end, he’s saying I must pay him more.
I always was happy to pay my fair share of taxes. I’m careful to pay every single penny on my taxes. I don’t have any money offshore. But the fact is that at this stage the general feeling in the country is, “You have it, give it to us.”
And I worked too hard to get it. I spent too much time, working too hard, to get it. Where was President Obama when I was working until 1, 2 in the morning and basically not spending as much time with my kids as I would have liked to? Where was he when I worked on Saturdays and Sundays?
Well, he’s here now. And what he’s saying is: “OK, you made the money, now you have to pay your fair share.”
I think my fair share can be what it’s been all along.
I work hard and I pay my taxes. No matter what the administration.
This is an administration that is spending more money than any administration in history. To spend more money, they need more money.
That’s where I object.
It’s a case of a president who really wants to redistribute wealth.
Share this information!
“George W. Bush and supporters of the tax cut said federal revenue would go up after passing the cuts and it appears it did. In fact, federal receipts reached Clinton-era levels without Clinton-era tax rates in 2006, not long after all the cuts went into effect (passed in 2001 and 2003, they were tweaked with in 2005). Bush passed a tax cut as stimulus in 2008 and Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus package in 2009 included some type of tax cuts as well, but does that chart look like a revenue problem or a spending problem?”
Are you all ready for increased taxes and continued borrowing of 40 cents or more on every dollar the Federal Government spends? Looks like that’s where we’re headed:
President Obama’s lead negotiator in the “fiscal cliff” talks said the administration is “absolutely” willing to allow the package of deep automatic spending cuts and across-the-board tax hikes to take effect Jan. 1, unless Republicans drop their opposition to higher income tax rates on the wealthy.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in an interview with CNBC that both sides are “making a little bit of progress” toward a deal to avert the “cliff” but remain stuck on Obama’s desired rate increase for the top U.S. income-earners.
“There’s no prospect for an agreement that doesn’t involve those rates going up on the top two percent of the wealthiest,” Geithner said.
And it’s not just tax increases for the “rich,” either (those, including small business owners, who earn over $200,000 a year). Obama wants carte blanche to unilaterally raise spending and the debt ceiling.
Obama, speaking at a meeting of 100 CEOs, warned Republicans that he would not accept a so-called “doomsday” deal that extends tax cuts for middle-income earners before the end of the year but nothing more.