Obama Declares "War" on Investors, Entrepreneurs & Business

[cawacko]

This article made me realize why Darla was so happy with Obama's speech from the other day.


Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Posted By: Larry Kudlow
Anchor

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

 

[Don Quixote]

This article made me realize why Darla was so happy with Obama's speech from the other day.


Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Posted By: Larry Kudlow
Anchor

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

as long as he includes investment bankers i am cool with it - investment bankers...practitioners of the dark forces...

i am curious, by small business, do you mean those netting more than $250,000.00 per year or all small businesses...my son owns his own business, but does not net more than $250,000 per year...he also employees several people

 

[Canceled2]

This article made me realize why Darla was so happy with Obama's speech from the other day.


Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Posted By: Larry Kudlow
Anchor

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

This is a cut off your nose to spite your face sort of idiocy! How in the hell does he think business's are going to grow or even be able to maintain jobs? Who's going to manfacture goods that investors are not buying stock in? And need we even state the obvious inflation of goods.

 

[Canceled2]

as long as he includes investment bankers i am cool with it - investment bankers...practitioners of the dark forces...

i am curious, by small business, do you mean those netting more than $250,000.00 per year or all small businesses...my son owns his own business, but does not net more than $250,000 per year...he also employees several people

Of course you meant he does not gross more than 250k per year right? So what kind of business that can employ "several" people does not gross 250k per year. What so many people who have never owned or operated a small business never seem to appreciate are the costs involved in time, money, and drive to make a successful business.

 

[Don Quixote]

Of course you meant he does not gross more than 250k per year right? So what kind of business that can employ "several" people does not gross 250k per year. What so many people who have never owned or operated a small business never seem to appreciate are the costs involved in time, money, and drive to make a successful business.

no, he does not 'net' more than $250,000 per year

his gross is over a million

he recycles cell phones...keeps them out of landfills and when he gets cell phones from a business, he donates 30% of his profit to the charity of the business' choice

i talk with my elder son from time to time about the nuts and bolts of his business, so i do understand what it takes to run a business

 

[Canceled2]

no, he does not 'net' more than $250,000 per year

his gross is over a million

he recycles cell phones...keeps them out of landfills and when he gets cell phones from a business, he donates 30% of his profit to the charity of the business' choice

i talk with my elder son from time to time about the nuts and bolts of his business, so i do understand what it takes to run a business

You make my point quite well, since people are taxed on their gross income not their net. So if your son doesn't even have 250k net off of a 1m gross income, imagine the small business guys grossing 250k trying to grow a business under the Obama tax rape...err rate

 

[Canceled2]

no, he does not 'net' more than $250,000 per year

his gross is over a million

he recycles cell phones...keeps them out of landfills and when he gets cell phones from a business, he donates 30% of his profit to the charity of the business' choice

i talk with my elder son from time to time about the nuts and bolts of his business, so i do understand what it takes to run a business

For Fun:

The First Income Tax
In 1863, the federal government collected the first income tax. This graduated tax was similar to the income tax we pay today. Those who earned $600 to $10,000 per year paid at a rate of 3 percent. A higher rate was paid by those who earned in excess of $10,000. A flat-rate tax was imposed in 1867. Five years later, in 1872, the national income tax was repealed altogether.

Spurned on by the Populist Party's 1892 campaign, Congress passed the Income Tax Act of 1894. This act taxed 2 percent of personal income that was more than $4,000, which only affected the wealthiest citizens. The income tax was short-lived, as the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down only a year after it was enacted. The justices wrote that, in their opinion, the income tax was unconstitutional because it failed to abide by a Constitutional guideline. This guideline required that any tax levied directly on individuals must be levied in proportion to a state's population.

In 1913, the income tax became a permanent part of the U.S. government. Congress avoided the constitutional roadblock mentioned above by passing a constitutional amendment. The 16th Amendment reads, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The 16th Amendment gave the government the power to levy taxes on individuals regardless of state population. The Underwood Tariff Act of 1913 included an income-tax section that initiated the system we use today. During World War II, the federal government began withholding taxes, also known as the pay-as-you-earn taxation system. This gave the government the steady flow of money needed to finance the war effort.

 

[Don Quixote]

You make my point quite well, since people are taxed on their gross income not their net. So if your son doesn't even have 250k net off of a 1m gross income, imagine the small business guys grossing 250k trying to grow a business under the Obama tax rape...err rate

ok, semantics

his 'gross taxable income' is less than $250,000

he has a low profit margin with a lot of deductions, like his employees and their benefits

 

[evince]

taxable income.

Folks this means the money he pays himself for his work at the business.

If he takes home for himself less than that he wont be taxed at that rate.

It means if instead of paying himself 250,000 a year he pays himself 240,000 and then invests the other ten into ....well say ..... another part time worker or a new piece of equipment then he wont be taxed at the new rate.

Guess what that ends up promoting?

 

[Bonestorm]

This article made me realize why Darla was so happy with Obama's speech from the other day.


Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Posted By: Larry Kudlow
Anchor

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

How is returning (almost but not quite) to tax rates that prevailed during the 1990s a declaration of war against business? Seems to me business did quite well in the 1990s.

Larry Kudlow is a jackass.

 

[Topspin]

I love Kudlow but he's a douche bag.
he was right in line with every republican that said Clinton would drive the economy into the dirt. He's a good cheerleader for the country club sailors.
But Obama is going to make the tide rise outside of the country club.

 

[cawacko]

How is returning (almost but not quite) to tax rates that prevailed during the 1990s a declaration of war against business? Seems to me business did quite well in the 1990s.

Larry Kudlow is a jackass.

You are definitely consistent. Is there a right-leaning analyst or columnist that isn't a jackass, asshole etc?

And the '90's were in the middle of an unbelievable tech boom. Kind of a far cry from today's economic environment.

 

[Topspin]

the Green Boom will be bigger than the tech boom.

 

[cawacko]

the Green Boom will be bigger than the tech boom.

Gentleman's bet Toppy (or as close to Gentlemen as you and I can be). I'll take the tech boom. Green boom won't come close.

 

[Canceled2]

taxable income.

Folks this means the money he pays himself for his work at the business.

If he takes home for himself less than that he wont be taxed at that rate.

It means if instead of paying himself 250,000 a year he pays himself 240,000 and then invests the other ten into ....well say ..... another part time worker or a new piece of equipment then he wont be taxed at the new rate.

Guess what that ends up promoting?

That's bunk! With the number of lost deductions, increases in employer paid taxes, the AGI moves closer to gross earnings than net profit.

As to the investor class; where are the incentives that cause them to want to invest? Without investment, capital mobility stagnates and the whole economy falters. To get the economy moving Obama ought to be encouraging this group, i.e. small business and ivestors, to take more risks, not less. I believe his tax increases combined with decreases in deductions, will make small business's and investors pull back and hunker down. In short this a recipe for further economic down-turns not growth.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are definitely consistent. Is there a right-leaning analyst or columnist that isn't a jackass, asshole etc?

And the '90's were in the middle of an unbelievable tech boom. Kind of a far cry from today's economic environment.

Yes. There are several. Kudlow is not one of them by a long shot. He is an idiot. Truly. The argument that implementing the tax levels that prevailed during the 1990s is war on business is just plain stupid, no matter the economic environment.

But I'll address the point anyway. In 1993 when the taxes were increased the we were coming out of a recession and people like Kudlow were saying the same shit then that they are saying now. They hate taxes. I understand that. Just say that. Don't concoct some horseshit argument about how increasing taxes on high income earners by a few percentage points and increasing capital gains taxes to a level less than that which prevailed during the 1990s is a "war" on anything. It isn't.

 

[Topspin]

I'll bet you a beer
pick out your favorite span of what you what to call the tech boom
S&P 500 then vs same period from Jan 09

 

[cawacko]

I'll bet you a beer
pick out your favorite span of what you what to call the tech boom
S&P 500 then vs same period from Jan 09

obviously cheerypicking a date here we'll say the tech boom 'ended' March 2000 when the market peaked. Do you want to say then March 1998 as the start so we have a two year time period?

That may not be apples to apples however because the tech boom was already advancing by March '98 while the Green Boom hasn't really started. However since its just for trash talking rights I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[Topspin]

shit why don't you ask for the beer now, how bout you pick something related to tech periond and not annally rape me by checking out at the peak. LOL

 

[Bonestorm]

Just for giggles, check out this column written by Kudlow back in 1993:


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n10_v45/ai_13800282


Edit: The last paragraph cracks me up:

Originally billing himself as a "new" Democrat, Mr. Clinton has veered sharply left in his first hundred days. His economic package was first advertised as a means to boost economic growth and lower the deficit. It will achieve neither. Instead, it is a grandiose plan of social engineering and income redistribution. Unless Senator Dole and others can stop it, Clintonism's leftward bent suggests that U.S. health care and tax policy will come more and more to resemble Europe's, and thence so will our economic performance.