The Presidents Leadership shines through.
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
March 30, 2009 10:41am CST
A Leader is often defined as you lead for one day and after that you have followers. It seems that President Obama’s Leadership skills are showing results. After repeatedly attacking the wealthy and the AIG Exec and their bonus people are beginning to buy into the idea that we take from the Rich and give to the poor. This morning on the news I heard a proposal from the Chancellor of a major Public University propose that there be a $50.00 surcharge per semester on those who come from families that make $80,000 or more a year to help those who are not as fortunate. We now have a new definition of wealthy, at least in my state, and it is you are wealthy if you make more than $80,000 (the President had put it at $250,000). Understand that these numbers are not just a number they picked out of thin air. If you check you may find that this will affect maybe 1/3 of the student body and what is $50.00 per semester? With a student population of 42,000 students that will generate $1,2600,000, per year. How will this money be spent on helping students who are already receiving almost 100% aid or will it go to increase the pay of the University staff? As long as you only charge less that 50% of the students you will have the support of a majority of the students. Remember President Obama won with 52% of the vote. That means that 48% did not vote for him.
When the majority is not affected by a tax why should they oppose it? If the minority objects to the tax they are greedy and don’t want to help the poor.
4 responses
@egdcltd (12060)
•
30 Mar 09
Sorry, but that's pretty short sighted. Just because the majority want something - or have been conned into thinking they want it - doesn't mean it's a good idea. For one thing, it's been seen that once a tax is brought in it will spread. It may start off at only people only $80,000 but it will go downwards. After all, there are more people earning less than that than above it.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
30 Mar 09
We are talking about people who make, as a family, around $19.00 per hour each. In my area people making above this are the Teacher, Nurses, Therapist, Utility workers, truck drivers, plumbers, Full time police and Firefighter, paramedics, store managers, just about anybody who has a Technical College or College degree. Not the people you would think of as rich but the political leaders have successfully started a class war and the people receiving government aid feel entitled to it and often demand it.
When they started the income tax they taxes 1% of you income over and adjusted gross income of $3,000. Every filer received a $3,000 deduction. So in reality the income taxed was over $6,000 per year. The average income in the country was $3,000 per year. Only about 1% made above $6,000 per year. Now the talk is to tax the top 5%, who currently pay 80% of the taxes.
It is time for a TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already).
@egdcltd (12060)
•
30 Mar 09
That's how it starts. First, you enact a law that only affects a very small percentage of the population. So, most people will be for it, as it doesn't affect them. Then, you increase the percentage slightly. Still a minority, so the majority is still for it. Then, you keep on doing this until everyone is affected.
@egdcltd (12060)
•
30 Mar 09
Once you have a section of the bureaucracy that depends on a section of society for their income/empire - such as those government officials who deal with the those on benefits - they will do everything in their power to ensure their continued existence by ensuring there are always people on benefits.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
30 Mar 09
This will always get by because the wealthy are not a protected minority. I will always oppose such crap because I WANT to be part of that wealthy minority and I think it's wrong for the government to use punitive taxation to kill my dreams and the dreams of others who want to succeed. You are right about how that number was carefully chosen. Trying to woo 52% isn't enough because there are people like me who will stand up for what is right regardless of our current income. That is why they are targeting along the lines of 66% to increase their likeliness of success.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
30 Mar 09
however there are people making over $80,000 who feel they are not taxes enough. I for one feel I need to do more to help people who are less fortunate. However I choose to select those people or organizations I will support and don't want the government to do it for me.
I hope you achieve your dream to become well off. If you are successful then others will rise because of your efforts. The politicians fail to understand that when some do better through hard work everyone benefits. I remember a teacher telling us that "The Grapes of Wrath" was the only American book allowed into Russia during the depression to point out that not everyone in America was working unlike Russia where everyone had a job. What the people got out of the book was that in America even the very poor had cars to drive. Even today our poor are better off that the lower middle class of most industrial nations around the world.
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
30 Mar 09
I'm thinking staff pay increases.
I am also thinking that it is time these schools were audited on a regular basis to see where all of their money is going.
I have seen where some of these high ranking school administrators and such are making in the area of a million a year, maybe a little less.
I think that is excessive considering the things that have been said of Corporate CEO's salaries and bonuses... and considering that our schools have turned into bastions of socialist indoctrination.
I thought commies were for the little guy... at least that is what they claim.
The reality of course, is much different.
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
30 Mar 09
I have to agree about the audit. Our local public university's president just got a major payraise. That in the face of that the rest of the staff doesn't get a raise, some were laid off, and tuition has been hiked. All because the state just can't provide that much education funding anymore. But somehow the board saw it fit to give this woman a 25% pay increase. For what? Cutting programs, teachers, what not? They claim she increased the number of enrollment. What really happened was that this is a public university which at least used to have affordable rates. That's why got more students. They go to where they can still get a decent degree at an affordable price. For this woman's pay increase they could have kept two teaching positions...
Funny enough, this woman is an Obama supporter and all for the re-distribution of wealth... as long as it's not her doing the giving part. And yes, even by Obama standards she'll now easily fit into the wealthy bracket.
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
30 Mar 09
Interesting idea, but also socialist in nature. $80,000 by today's standards is really not much depending on family size and what part of the country one lives in. $80,000 in lets say the back areas of KY definitely gets you more than in L.A. for example. $80,000 for a family with just one child gets you father than for those with two or more. It has also been my experience that the rich can whittle down their 'income' to look like they are poor. It just won't work out right and overall won't be fair nor really help the poor.
Personally, I would be against something like that or any redistribution approach in that manner. It just gives people an incentive to not be productive. Stuff like that didn't work elsewhere, won't work here either. But before people will realize that a once prosperous country will have been run into the ground. And the have nots will still be the have nots and the rich will have left the country.
