Obamanomics

The American Thinker with a incredible comment by Obamania's regarding the capital gains tax

Charlie Gibson reminded Obama of a March 27^th statement he made to Maria Bartiromo on CNBC's Closing Bell that he'd return the rate to the 28 percent it was under Bill Clinton. Said Gibson: [emphasis added throughout]

"It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent .... And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

"And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? "

And Obama's remarkable response:

"Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair."

Wow. Democrats have typically ignored or outright denied the supply-side benefits of lower taxes -- particularly capital gains.

But with that statement, Obama betrayed first his intellectual dishonesty, then his economic idiocy. The candidate is well aware that his hypothetical hedge fund manager pays a much higher rate on wages than does his supposed secretary. And that they both pay the same rate on capital gains - yes Senator, millions of Americans of varying income, including secretaries, own stock.

My take on Obamanomics is he doesn't care... He doesn't care if the reduced capital gains rates generates more economic activity or that it results in more tax revenues for the Treasury. His only concern is that it's "fair".

So as long as everybody is poor I guess that's fair. Sound like marxism to you?

Exactly, who is served by making rich people poor? How are poor people served?