|
|
|
Are 'Hope' And 'Change' Still Tax-Deductible?
|
Economy; Posted on: 2009-03-11 18:45:33 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ]
|
Liberals have no intention of
actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to
help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their
incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.
by Ann Coulter
Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollar
spending bill by raising taxes on "the rich." I know, I know ... I was
pretty shocked, too.
The bad news is, by hiking taxes in a
recession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there's
good news, too. The "rich" include most of Obama's biggest supporters.
While
liberals love being praised for their looks, their style, their
brilliance and their courage, the one quality they don't want talked
about is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantly
boasting about how poor they are -- as if that's a virtue in a
capitalist society with no class barriers.
No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they're
giving up the poor's mantle of angry self-righteousness. This is
especially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or the
taxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.
Democrats' claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.
At
the Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelt
tributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and Michelle
Obama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in "public service" --
which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama's case, as
"working as a 'diversity coordinator' at a big city hospital for
$300,000 a year."
Seriously, even with a company car, full medical benefits and six weeks' paid vacation thrown in, how do people live on that?
Meanwhile,
the average salary for a lawyer with 20 years or more experience in the
U.S. is a little more than $100,000. If Michelle Obama doesn't lay off
all this "giving back" stuff pretty soon, she's going to find herself
in Warren Buffett's tax bracket.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden was also praised by the Democrats for being the poorest U.S.
senator -- as if that were a major accomplishment.
Howard
Dean, then-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, touted Biden
as "a good example of a working-class kid," adding that, to this day,
Biden was "one of the least wealthy members of the U.S. Senate." Only a
Democrat would list "never really made anything of myself" on his
resume.
On the Huffington Post, operated by a woman who
acquired her wealth by marrying a rich gay guy connected to Big Oil,
liberal blogger Steven Clemons gloated that, unlike John McCain, Biden
wouldn't "forget the number of houses he owns," adding that, in 2006,
Biden was ranked the poorest U.S. senator.
And at his high school reunion Biden was voted "most likely to try to bum a ride off of somebody." Vote Biden!
According
to tax returns for Biden and his public schoolteacher wife, in 2006,
their total income was $248,459; in 2007, it was $319,853 -- putting
the couple in the top 1 percent of all earners in the U.S.
This,
my friends, is the face of poverty in America. At least in the
Democratic Party. It's located just below that row of hair plugs. The
Bidens are yet another heart-rending example of America's "hidden poor"
-- desperately needy families hidden behind annual incomes of a quarter
million dollars or more paid by the taxpayer. My fellow Americans, we
can do better.
The national median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007. Working for the government pays well.
If
liberals are going to show how in touch they are with normal Americans
by demanding a Marxist revolution against the rich every time they
control the government, how about taking a peek at the charitable
giving of these champions of the little guy?
According to
their tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and
6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to
draw the line someplace with all this "giving back" stuff. The Bidens
gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.
No
wonder Obama doesn't see what the big fuss is over his decision to
limit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part of
Obama's tax plan won't affect his supporters.
Meanwhile,
in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591,
$212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were
$28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away
more than 10 percent of his income each year.
For purposes
of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than
twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave
about the same amount to charity.
That same year, the
heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77
percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush
gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than
Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about "change" he's referring to his
charitable contributions.
Liberals have no intention of
actually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger to
help the poor. That's for other people to do with what's left of their
incomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.
As
the great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained while
scoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: "I'm
afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be
Christians."
Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=1377470x2893895x147459758&id=31041
|
|
News Source: human events
|
|
