Barack is not impressed: The president’s reluctance to kowtow to the very rich
Paul Ryan expressed this GOP worldview in a speech yesterday on his initial second-banana swing through Pennsylvania. “Every now and then President Obama sort of drops his veil,” Ryan said. “He’s less coy about his philosophy. He sort of reveals his true governing policy, what he really believes.” Then Romney’s running mate rattled off a few familiar examples from 2008 like Obama’s claim that small-town Pennsylvanians “cling to guns or religion” and his comment to Joe the Plumber that “when you spread the wealth around , it’s good for everybody.”
Two major journalistic efforts, published this week, emphasize the political consequences of Obama’s diffident attitude towards the billionaire class of campaign donors. Both a meaty New Yorker article by Jane Mayer and the best e-book in Politico’s series of campaign chronicles analyze why Obama, with all the powers of presidential incumbency, is so hobbled in the super PAC spending race.
The New Yorker succinctly summarizes the Democratic problem in its headline: “SCHMOOSE OR LOSE–Obama doesn’t like cozying up to billionaires. Will it cost him the election?” The Politico e-book, “Obama’s Last Stand,” by Glenn Thrush makes the identical point about the president: “He was also hurt by his own aversion to massaging demanding Democratic donors–many of them Clinton Democrats who never liked him in the first place.”
Most major political figures in both parties have grown adept at convincing donors with the net worth of King Midas that it is friendship–and not, God forbid, money–that has brought them together. Ryan himself flew to Las Vegas last week to pledge fealty to GOP super PAC impresario Sheldon Adelson. Bill Clinton, who embodies the gold standard in schmoozing with the wealthy, made a personal pitch to a VIP gathering of Democratic super PAC donors in New York last week along with David Plouffe, Obama’s 2008 campaign manager who is now on the White House payroll.
But Obama himself stubbornly resists the petty insincerities that are the coin of the realm when it comes to “donor maintenance,” a wonderful Clinton-era euphemism for events like White House coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers. (During the Clinton years, I recall a major donor, who had a penchant for displaying her cleavage, telling me in all sincerity, “The president respects my policy advice.”) In contrast, as Mayer recounts, Obama couldn’t even be bothered to pose for pictures with his most devoted contributors during the 2009 White House Christmas and Hanukkah parties.
While the after-shocks from the financial crisis created an inevitable distancing between the White House and Wall Street, Obama’s fund-raising problems have far more to do with atmospherics and attitudes than governing substance. Despite Ryan’s rhetoric, Obama’s economic policies reflect the mainstream of the Democratic Party–and not some alien ideology. Many liberals, from Nancy Pelosi to Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, believe with some justice that Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have been too lenient and soft-spoken in reacting to the greed-is-good excesses of the financial community.
What it all comes back to is the idiosyncratic psychology of Barack Obama, who is probably the most elusive president since Woodrow Wilson. (The 28th president was such an enigma that Sigmund Freud— yes, that guy—co-authored a psychological study of him). Part of it is that Obama keeps the entire world, outside of his family and a few close friends like Valerie Jarrett, at a middle distance. There is an odd democracy to this since Obama ignores major Democratic donors in the same even-handed way that he neglects Senate committee chairmen.
Obama is unusual in politics—and here Republicans make a valid point—in his apparent refusal to be awed in the presence of billionaires. Unlike the Clintons and the Romney-Ryan ticket, Obama is not a devout believer in the gospel of wealth. As a Democratic fund-raiser, quoted in the Politico e-book, says about the president, “He doesn’t understand the rich. He’s an intellectual elitist, not an economic one.”
In Pennsylvania yesterday, Ryan disapprovingly cited Obama’s recent line, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” The president was trying to make the political point that all types of government spending, from schools to roads, contribute to the success of any American business. The Republicans, though, are willing to go to battle over this point with the same enthusiasm they chanted, “Drill, baby, drill” in 2008. The political theme for Tuesday—the second day of the GOP convention—is “We Built That.”
Unlike most clashes in this campaign, this debate over the role of government in the creation of wealth and new businesses reflects abiding differences between the Democratic and Republican tickets as well as competing philosophies. As Mayer summarizes in the New Yorker, “Obama continues to see economic success as the result of many factors beside individual effort, and, consequently, he may be less awed by wealth than others.”
Campaign reporters, though, comprise a class that is awed by wealth in politics. The Politico e-book calls Obama’s failure to initially encourage Democratic super PAC spending the president’s biggest mistake of the campaign. Mayer shrewdly worries about the effects of the anything-goes culture of unlimited campaign donations (the new world in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision) on the 2016 presidential race when there may be no incumbent on the ballot.
While lamenting the thumb-on-the-scales powers of billionaires like Adelson in politics, I skeptically wonder if the heavy emphasis on the rival TV ad campaigns in this year’s Obama-Romney race is not exaggerated. With two conventions and three presidential debates, voters in swing states will go to the polls with a vast arsenal of information beyond the contents of 30-second attack ads.
Maybe, in fact, Obama will be proved right in his hesitation to offer homage to Democratic donors with yachts and four vacation homes. Of course, the president’s steadfast reluctance to schmooze-you-can-use with everyone else in politics may speak to a far deeper problem about using the full powers of the White House to govern.
http://m.yahoo.com/w/legobpengine/news/barack-is-not-impressed--the-president%E2%80%99s-reluctance-to-kowtow-to-the-very-rich-.html?.b=business&.ts=1345703447&.intl=us&.lang=en&.tsrc=vmus
I know Obama's not entirely wrong. He's right in that many things contribute to one's success. On one hand it's great that he's not overawed by wealth, on the other hand, it does seem that he is unappreciative of people's efforts to gain their own wealth, which is wrong. People that have worked hard to gain what they have ARE going to be defensive over it. When you work for something, you put effort into it, whether it's a new set of clothes or a roomful of money. You sacrifice for it, you put the work into it, you achieve it. Even in the case of someone born into wealth, it was HIS family that earned it, that put the effort forth..usually with the idea in mind to pass it down to their family.
Obama's seeming disregard of those that earn more who sacrificed, worked, and acheived is only going to make them dig in their heels harder. Just because someone else thinks it's petty doesn't mean it's right to take it from them. His efforts should not be to take more because HE thinks it's fair because they have more. It would be fair to tax them the exact same as everyone is taxed, it is not fair to tax them more because they have more.
If he could be the way he is (not overawed by wealth and not catering to it) AND remember that human element he could have made a great president.
This:
Quoting Jalestra:I know Obama's not entirely wrong. He's right in that many things contribute to one's success. On one hand it's great that he's not overawed by wealth, on the other hand, it does seem that he is unappreciative of people's efforts to gain their own wealth, which is wrong. People that have worked hard to gain what they have ARE going to be defensive over it. When you work for something, you put effort into it, whether it's a new set of clothes or a roomful of money. You sacrifice for it, you put the work into it, you achieve it. Even in the case of someone born into wealth, it was HIS family that earned it, that put the effort forth..usually with the idea in mind to pass it down to their family.
Obama's seeming disregard of those that earn more who sacrificed, worked, and acheived is only going to make them dig in their heels harder. Just because someone else thinks it's petty doesn't mean it's right to take it from them. His efforts should not be to take more because HE thinks it's fair because they have more. It would be fair to tax them the exact same as everyone is taxed, it is not fair to tax them more because they have more.
If he could be the way he is (not overawed by wealth and not catering to it) AND remember that human element he could have made a great president.
Quoting Xlandria:
This:
Quoting Jalestra:
I know Obama's not entirely wrong. He's right in that many things contribute to one's success. On one hand it's great that he's not overawed by wealth, on the other hand, it does seem that he is unappreciative of people's efforts to gain their own wealth, which is wrong. People that have worked hard to gain what they have ARE going to be defensive over it. When you work for something, you put effort into it, whether it's a new set of clothes or a roomful of money. You sacrifice for it, you put the work into it, you achieve it. Even in the case of someone born into wealth, it was HIS family that earned it, that put the effort forth..usually with the idea in mind to pass it down to their family.
Obama's seeming disregard of those that earn more who sacrificed, worked, and acheived is only going to make them dig in their heels harder. Just because someone else thinks it's petty doesn't mean it's right to take it from them. His efforts should not be to take more because HE thinks it's fair because they have more. It would be fair to tax them the exact same as everyone is taxed, it is not fair to tax them more because they have more.
If he could be the way he is (not overawed by wealth and not catering to it) AND remember that human element he could have made a great president.
I don't disagree (except that I think he is a great president).
But, if you look at marginal tax rates, the rich are taxed the exact same as everyone else. . .except when it comes to investment income, which is taxed less.
Mitt Romney's dad (a millionare, who built a company which build employment) was taxed at 37% (the same tax rate as me).
Mitt Romney (a billionaire, whose company he did not build and whose company does not create jobs) is taxed at 15%, which means he is taxed less than a small businessman who is actually trying to make/create jobs for others.
I simply think that Mitt Romney should not be taxed less than his father was, and I support taxes at the rates they were under Ronald Reagan, the same as Obama.
P.S. Kudos to Obama for not being awed by wealth. It makes him less susceptible to special interests, which all politicians could benefit from.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason that Investments are taxed at a lower rate is because it is a risky money move, also an encouragement for people to invest. Not 100% sure, but I think I read that recently. I'm all for everyone paying the same income tax rate, (% wise). But then, of course, there are those who would complain if you hung them with a new rope.
Quoting MsDenuninani:
Quoting Xlandria:
This:
Quoting Jalestra:
I know Obama's not entirely wrong. He's right in that many things contribute to one's success. On one hand it's great that he's not overawed by wealth, on the other hand, it does seem that he is unappreciative of people's efforts to gain their own wealth, which is wrong. People that have worked hard to gain what they have ARE going to be defensive over it. When you work for something, you put effort into it, whether it's a new set of clothes or a roomful of money. You sacrifice for it, you put the work into it, you achieve it. Even in the case of someone born into wealth, it was HIS family that earned it, that put the effort forth..usually with the idea in mind to pass it down to their family.
Obama's seeming disregard of those that earn more who sacrificed, worked, and acheived is only going to make them dig in their heels harder. Just because someone else thinks it's petty doesn't mean it's right to take it from them. His efforts should not be to take more because HE thinks it's fair because they have more. It would be fair to tax them the exact same as everyone is taxed, it is not fair to tax them more because they have more.
If he could be the way he is (not overawed by wealth and not catering to it) AND remember that human element he could have made a great president.
I don't disagree (except that I think he is a great president).
But, if you look at marginal tax rates, the rich are taxed the exact same as everyone else. . .except when it comes to investment income, which is taxed less.
Mitt Romney's dad (a millionare, who built a company which build employment) was taxed at 37% (the same tax rate as me).
Mitt Romney (a billionaire, whose company he did not build and whose company does not create jobs) is taxed at 15%, which means he is taxed less than a small businessman who is actually trying to make/create jobs for others.
I simply think that Mitt Romney should not be taxed less than his father was, and I support taxes at the rates they were under Ronald Reagan, the same as Obama.
P.S. Kudos to Obama for not being awed by wealth. It makes him less susceptible to special interests, which all politicians could benefit from.
You are exactly right. A person would be a fool to risk investment if their rewards are not capable of offsetting their losses due to excess taxes. If nobody wants to take the risk, then operating and expanding capital is lost and the ecomy stagnates, as history has proven.
Quoting Xlandria:If I'm not mistaken, the reason that Investments are taxed at a lower rate is because it is a risky money move, also an encouragement for people to invest. Not 100% sure, but I think I read that recently. I'm all for everyone paying the same income tax rate, (% wise). But then, of course, there are those who would complain if you hung them with a new rope.
Quoting MsDenuninani:
Quoting Xlandria:
This:
Quoting Jalestra:
I know Obama's not entirely wrong. He's right in that many things contribute to one's success. On one hand it's great that he's not overawed by wealth, on the other hand, it does seem that he is unappreciative of people's efforts to gain their own wealth, which is wrong. People that have worked hard to gain what they have ARE going to be defensive over it. When you work for something, you put effort into it, whether it's a new set of clothes or a roomful of money. You sacrifice for it, you put the work into it, you achieve it. Even in the case of someone born into wealth, it was HIS family that earned it, that put the effort forth..usually with the idea in mind to pass it down to their family.
Obama's seeming disregard of those that earn more who sacrificed, worked, and acheived is only going to make them dig in their heels harder. Just because someone else thinks it's petty doesn't mean it's right to take it from them. His efforts should not be to take more because HE thinks it's fair because they have more. It would be fair to tax them the exact same as everyone is taxed, it is not fair to tax them more because they have more.
If he could be the way he is (not overawed by wealth and not catering to it) AND remember that human element he could have made a great president.
I don't disagree (except that I think he is a great president).
But, if you look at marginal tax rates, the rich are taxed the exact same as everyone else. . .except when it comes to investment income, which is taxed less.
Mitt Romney's dad (a millionare, who built a company which build employment) was taxed at 37% (the same tax rate as me).
Mitt Romney (a billionaire, whose company he did not build and whose company does not create jobs) is taxed at 15%, which means he is taxed less than a small businessman who is actually trying to make/create jobs for others.
I simply think that Mitt Romney should not be taxed less than his father was, and I support taxes at the rates they were under Ronald Reagan, the same as Obama.
P.S. Kudos to Obama for not being awed by wealth. It makes him less susceptible to special interests, which all politicians could benefit from.
I remember when they had the shortlived "luxury" tax. I can't remember if it was the first Bush or Clinton that came up with that. There was a surcharge tax for jewelry, furs, yachts, etc that rich people buy. Ohhh, that's going to bring in soooooooooo much money in tax dollars.
Guess what happened? The rich cut back their purchases, or bought the stuff overseas. It almost completely sank the boat building industry (pun intended) and unemployment went up. It ended up costing the US more in unemployment than they managed to collect in taxes.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
Too many times the government uses taxes as a 'control' over people. And guess what? It usually backfires in their face. Oh when will they ever learn?
Quoting DSamuels:I remember when they had the shortlived "luxury" tax. I can't remember if it was the first Bush or Clinton that came up with that. There was a surcharge tax for jewelry, furs, yachts, etc that rich people buy. Ohhh, that's going to bring in soooooooooo much money in tax dollars.
Guess what happened? The rich cut back their purchases, or bought the stuff overseas. It almost completely sank the boat building industry (pun intended) and unemployment went up. It ended up costing the US more in unemployment than they managed to collect in taxes.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
Probably never. I don't hold out much hope of it ever happening. But it would be nice.
Quoting Xlandria:Too many times the government uses taxes as a 'control' over people. And guess what? It usually backfires in their face. Oh when will they ever learn?
Quoting DSamuels:I remember when they had the shortlived "luxury" tax. I can't remember if it was the first Bush or Clinton that came up with that. There was a surcharge tax for jewelry, furs, yachts, etc that rich people buy. Ohhh, that's going to bring in soooooooooo much money in tax dollars.
Guess what happened? The rich cut back their purchases, or bought the stuff overseas. It almost completely sank the boat building industry (pun intended) and unemployment went up. It ended up costing the US more in unemployment than they managed to collect in taxes.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
It was Bush
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/jun/30/lesson-yacht-tax/
Quoting DSamuels:I remember when they had the shortlived "luxury" tax. I can't remember if it was the first Bush or Clinton that came up with that. There was a surcharge tax for jewelry, furs, yachts, etc that rich people buy. Ohhh, that's going to bring in soooooooooo much money in tax dollars.
Guess what happened? The rich cut back their purchases, or bought the stuff overseas. It almost completely sank the boat building industry (pun intended) and unemployment went up. It ended up costing the US more in unemployment than they managed to collect in taxes.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.
Quoting Xlandria:
If I'm not mistaken, the reason that Investments are taxed at a lower rate is because it is a risky money move, also an encouragement for people to invest. Not 100% sure, but I think I read that recently. I'm all for everyone paying the same income tax rate, (% wise). But then, of course, there are those who would complain if you hung them with a new rope.
Quoting MsDenuninani:
Quoting Xlandria:
This:
Quoting Jalestra:
I know Obama's not entirely wrong. He's right in that many things contribute to one's success. On one hand it's great that he's not overawed by wealth, on the other hand, it does seem that he is unappreciative of people's efforts to gain their own wealth, which is wrong. People that have worked hard to gain what they have ARE going to be defensive over it. When you work for something, you put effort into it, whether it's a new set of clothes or a roomful of money. You sacrifice for it, you put the work into it, you achieve it. Even in the case of someone born into wealth, it was HIS family that earned it, that put the effort forth..usually with the idea in mind to pass it down to their family.
Obama's seeming disregard of those that earn more who sacrificed, worked, and acheived is only going to make them dig in their heels harder. Just because someone else thinks it's petty doesn't mean it's right to take it from them. His efforts should not be to take more because HE thinks it's fair because they have more. It would be fair to tax them the exact same as everyone is taxed, it is not fair to tax them more because they have more.
If he could be the way he is (not overawed by wealth and not catering to it) AND remember that human element he could have made a great president.
I don't disagree (except that I think he is a great president).
But, if you look at marginal tax rates, the rich are taxed the exact same as everyone else. . .except when it comes to investment income, which is taxed less.
Mitt Romney's dad (a millionare, who built a company which build employment) was taxed at 37% (the same tax rate as me).
Mitt Romney (a billionaire, whose company he did not build and whose company does not create jobs) is taxed at 15%, which means he is taxed less than a small businessman who is actually trying to make/create jobs for others.
I simply think that Mitt Romney should not be taxed less than his father was, and I support taxes at the rates they were under Ronald Reagan, the same as Obama.
P.S. Kudos to Obama for not being awed by wealth. It makes him less susceptible to special interests, which all politicians could benefit from.
Maybe. . .but I don't believe the rich need encouragement to invest. Money put into an investment comes off your total income, which in itself is an encouragement to invest. (For example, my taxable income is lowered by whatever money I put in my child's college savings account.) Plus, you get to take a loss if your iinvestment loses money.
Lois Lerner, IRS Official, On Leave Of Absence: Reports
- _Kissy_
on Aug. 23, 2012 at 2:45 AM