I once had a boss who was independently rich, and when I asked him for a raise, he turned me down, adding that he, too, had forsaken a raise that year. A surge of anger, resentment and sheer hatred welled up in me, and were it not that I needed the job, I would have gone for his throat. His unthinking and unthinkable attempt to make common cause with me brought to mind Anatole France’s observation that “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Now it brings to mind Barack Obama.Okay. Yes. But: It's been noted many times, when rich people like Warren Buffet beg to be made to pay their fair share, that when you pay your taxes you can make a voluntary additional payment to the federal government. So why don't they just chip in some extra?
Obama's tossing in 5% is a way of saying, that's the additional amount that seems fair to ask. I can't change the tax law on my own and make all rich people pay 5% more, but I will voluntarily do what I think all should do. It's basically the golden rule. You can't make everyone do what you want them to do, but you can be the example of what you think all should do.
But Obama didn't portray his 5% contribution as an example for all rich people, a reminder, as we approach April 15th, that you can jack up your own tax payment because you see that's your fair share or just because you have plenty of money and you'd like to be generous and try to help with the many good and necessary things the government does.
No, Obama characterized his 5% as sharing the sacrifice that the sequester is forcing some public sector employees to make. It's just not the same kind of sacrifice. He won't even feel his sacrifice. And if he does, he can ease his tiny pains with another deluxe vacation and a few more concerts at the White House performed by whichever pop stars his daughters are enthusing over this month.
पोस्ट्स
८९ टिप्पण्या:
He may have said it, but there is no way that he's going to give up 5% of his paycheck.
cuz....there's a single mother at the white house that would kick-his-ass.
This is up there with "If you like your current health care, then you can keep it"
Independently rich?
So the guy earned it on his own?
He didn't give himself raise, otoh, maybe the owner knew something he didn't.
Gee, that means he only has $380,000 left to live on. Well, plus his $50,000 annual expense account, and $100,000 non-taxable travel account, and $19,000 entertainment account. Wonder if his vacations come out of his travel account, or if he using his entertainment account for all those White House concerts. I'd hate to think the taxpayers are footing the bill for those...
How many families had to cut more than 5% from their budget?
Via Confounded Interest:
I am speaking to a group in Dallas on Monday on the housing market, specifically any headwinds to a full recovery. Today’s jobs numbers illustrate the headwinds to an economic and housing recovery.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), nonfarm payroll employment edged up in March (+88,000), and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.6 percent.
That is the good news. The bad news? The number of people not in the labor force which in March skyrocketed by 663,000 to a record 90 million. This was the biggest monthly increase in people dropping out of the labor force since January 2012. And civilian labor force participation rate fell to 63.3%, back to Carter-era levels.
Does anyone remember he asked for an increase in the WH budget I think last year?
He pays no phone, electric, water, property tax or other things we pay for.
Seeing Red - Don't forget, free rent, and free food, and free room and board for the mother-in-law...
Obama has a tin ear for gestures.
Style over substance.
Obama is a man who has never had a real job. Just try to imagine his perspective, he doesn't know what the real world is like.
2 for 23! Another brick!
So why didn't he tell Sushi and Mongolia that they'd have to forego their Spring Break at Atlantis and Squaw Valley, too?
Had Obama studied economics, which he clearly did not, he might have come across the concept of marginal utility.
There's an old Charles Barsotti cartoon of a begger on a street corner as the king strolls past and stiffs the begger with this explanation: "Kings don't carry money."
There's no pleasing some people.
How many families had to cut more than 5% from their budget?
Well at the start of the year, working folks saw a 2% cut in their income. Ironically the the Fed also had to cut 2% of spending in the sequester and we are told that will bring financial Armageddon.
It's a endlessly useful Mad Libs headline:
Obama's insulting __________ stunt.
He won't even feel his sacrifice. And if he does, he can ease his tiny pains with another deluxe vacation and a few more concerts at the White House performed by whichever pop stars his daughters are enthusing over this month.
Just like you didn't have to feel any real sacrifice from Act 10.
I doubt you ever rub elbows with the peons at the bottom of the food chain who did feel it.
It is quaint to think of today that we originally voted the President a 50% pension out of concern that Harry Truman actually would fall into "straightened circumstances" in his retirement and become an embarrassment to the nation.
I doubt that the Obama's will top the Clintons - Michelle is no Hillary!, and neither is Obama - but I do think his nominal salary and pension will be minor considerations.
How many families had to cut more than 5% from their budget?
5% seems like kind of an odd number to pick. It's awfully low. Is it supposed to be linked to something or did he just pick it?
I've skimmed three articles about this now and still can't find out:
How many workers? How long the furloughs?
"Just like you didn't have to feel any real sacrifice from Act 10.
I doubt you ever rub elbows with the peons at the bottom of the food chain who did feel it. "
You mean all those teachers who didn't get laid off ?
An empty gesture but warmly received by the intended audience. He's only interested in playing the game for the political importance, keeping the low information voters on board.
The sequester follies were being a woo wooed on NPR this morning. How dare anyone's money dry up while we charge a third of very dollar spent. The silly rabbits acted as if that made sense.
The crash of the dollar is the target Obama and his currency trading billionaire friends have always aimed us at, and it cannot be avoided now.
The sequester is 5% of what needs to be cut.
So the silly media clowns keep year 5 of their Obama stories about his trying so hard to get taxes from the rich that are only another 1% of the cuts that are needed
One of the fun things about GM is that he himself said he could just go out and make more money.
He could also find a peon affected by Act 10 and give some of his hard-earned money to ease the person's plight, but we may never know if he walks his talk or not.
Forget Obama, that Richard Cohen quote made me vomit a little. I assume that the company wasn't doing well enough to give raises that year hence the bosses comment on not getting a raise himself. So based on that assumption where does this Cohen character expect this magic money to come from. Maybe he should have worked a little harder and made sure the company he works for is actually profitable, you know, maybe be like responsible or something.
This is really insulting. Isn't Cohen a big liberal? How could he say such a thing?
What makes Obama's "gesture" insulting is that this Administration made the big hullabaloo about the sequester - and some people indubitably has suffered as a result of that stunt - but at the same time it has continued to, and indeed increased, shoveling out money to Solyndra, Fisker, etc., and on and on for totally pie in the sky, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, schemes, not to mention the Presidential family's vacation practices with at least one Air Force One, a couple of C-5's, and a fleet of 757's in tow. And the F-16's, of course.
Goody, so he made a tiny contribution that will be pissed away on, say, sensitivity training for Dept of Agriculture cubicle dwellers.
Wouldn't most normals be far more impressed if he wrote a check for the same amount to charity?
what can you say about our president other than no matter how out of touch or mal-educated you think he is, he'll surprise you. Not in a good way.
It's a stunt. Only that, and nothing more.
Herbert Hoover and John Kennedy both donated their salaries to charity.
Obama's so called sacrifice might be more meaningful and of actual value if he and his family would just quit taking such EXPENSIVE vacations.
That would amount to much more that a measly 5% of his compensation.
PowderSpringsCityCouncilWatch said...
How much of his salary as Gov. did Mitt Romney give up?
Romney never collected a salary as Gov of Mass.
He also paid for his own personal travel.
madAsHell said...
He may have said it, but there is no way that he's going to give up 5% of his paycheck.
He's made millions from his book, and he'll make millions after he retires in public speaking fees, commission seats, board fees, and professorships. The 20 grand is a promotional expense. Politics is the gateway to wealth - much of it funded by our tax dollars via academia.
90 million Americans are no longer looking for work.
90 MILLION AMERICANS ARE NO LONGER LOOKING FOR WORK.
90 MILLION AMERICANS ARE NO LONGER LOOKING FOR WORK.
But Obama is TRYING to get around those obstructionist Republicans and help The People because he loves The People he is our Great Black Father in Washington. Please help Obama get rid of those obstructionist Republicans in 2014 so he can FINALLY HELP THE PEOPLE HE LOVES SO MUCH!
His - and Holder's - stunt of giving back 5% of their pay is offensive on its' face along with being pandering and demogogic(sp).
Obama is making what $1mm a year now - I seem to recall the POTUS getting a raise from the $400k (or so) they were paid.
So he gives back $50k. That's might white of him isn't it? To give back a pittance while he and his wife have huge bank accounts from their previous jobs.
Once again he's proven what an absolute shitty human being he is.
Make a space for all the Democrats and liberals who are edging away from the Obama precipice, especially as the costs of Obamacare rain down and the economy wheezes along.
They may be realizing that they don't need to make more bad laws. Maybe Obama's safer than Joe Klein in the fart cloud of racial sentiment enveloping the country.
He's got his Hawaii mansion and an endless supply of speaking engagements lined up.
What about the rest of you?
It seems more manipulative than sincere. It is patently PR, but the true believers will love him for it. They love him for everything....I think the only thing that would subvert his appeal would be if he got caught having an affair with a blonde girl with a skinny ass-- and even then only the black women would think the worse of him for it.
" , when rich people like Warren Buffet beg to be made to pay their fair share," Two things here, 1. Define fair, and 2. How many wealthy, after demanding that their taxes be increased ,have ever voluntarily paid more ?
They don't voluntarily pay more, they make insipid statements because they know that once an increase has been codified and become law ; their accountants and lawyers can find any appropriate loopholes and continue to avoid paying what the "progressives" call a fair share. Avoiding paying whilst bemoaning being insufficiently taxed.
Chuck Hagel started it. Obama copied him the very next day, followed by Kerry and Holder, and now Napolitano and Lew today. This is giving me giggle fits.
Remember Kerry's boat tax-evasion scandal? Or Geithner's unpaid taxes? Joe Biden charges the Secret Service rent to stay in his back house. Seriously! Google it.
Leftists talk a good game but how they hate to part with their money. And now, because of Hagel, they feel shamed into forking it over. This is rich.
24 "patriotic millionaires" went to DC in 2011, demanding to be taxed more. Here's the video of their steadfast refusal to voluntarily give the government a single extra penny. "Tax me more!" Bwahaha.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/patriotic-millionaires-demand-higher-taxes-but-unwilling-to-pay-up-video/
" What makes Obama's "gesture" insulting is..." Anything that crosses his lips.
Now if he said he wasn't taking salary for 2013, that would have been more meaningful.
garage - you will defend anything this political hack does, all in the name of politics.
Whatever happened to FDR's dollar-a-year advisers?
His is a small price to pay to avoid critisim for his numerous golf outings and quarterly sumptuous vacations.
After four years this is what it takes to get our hostess irate?
As for Richard Cohen, does anyone subscribe to the WaPo just to read his drivel?
90 million Americans are no longer looking for work.
90 MILLION AMERICANS ARE NO LONGER LOOKING FOR WORK.
90 MILLION AMERICANS ARE NO LONGER LOOKING FOR WORK.
But Obama is TRYING to get around those obstructionist Republicans and help The People because he loves The People he is our Great Black Father in Washington. Please help Obama get rid of those obstructionist Republicans in 2014 so he can FINALLY HELP THE PEOPLE HE LOVES SO MUCH!
Wow you are on a roll today! Lets get his visage on Mt. Rushmore ASAP. Better still lets get Uncle Joe Stalin like statutes of him placed on every public square. Because he loves us so much.
Activism through symbolism. I'm surprised this is just now being noticed, and by The Washington Post, too.
Herbert Hoover and John Kennedy both donated their salaries to charity.
4/5/13, 11:54 AM
Both men were millionaires when they became president. JFK was worth a hundred million in today's money when he took the oath of office. Hardly a financial sacrafice. By the way did either of them take a tax deduction for forgoing their salaries?
If I remember correctly from my reading of Robert Hughes’s terrific 1992 book “Barcelona, he recounted Gaudi's solicitation for donations for his Sagrada Familia from a wealthy patron. Relenting, the patron concedes to give him money. Gaudi replied, "No, this must be a sacrifice, you must suffer." and he asked for a bigger donation.
I'm going up to Suburbia's room to offer some consolation. She's thinking about breaking up with Obama the boyfriend. She can't find a job, the world is looking scary, and she wants to go on a trip instead of buying Sandra Fluke's rubbers.
"Barry helped you honey, and I'm proud of you. I know you care about him. You've learned a lot about yourself and the world, and other people."
"You don't have to buy him any more things, or give him any more money. That's not what love is."
"Some people talk a really good game"
"Yes, I think he sends those emails out to everyone. "
"I know NPR and 60 minutes said that, but we all need certain things to be true. They've got to make a buck, too. It's not always what you know, but what you know that ain't so'
re: 5%
He's mocking us.
His 5% doesn't come close to compensating for the annual trillion dollar account deficits. Diluting the value of capital and labor has consequences. Perhaps he could redistribute 5% to every American. That still would not compensate for his liberal fiscal policies. Not in America or anywhere else.
What an ass.
Am I wrong in remembering the Obamas' had $300.00 or so in charitable contributions prior to his run for President?
It seems to me careful distinctions are called for here.
The gift of 5% of his salary back to the treasury is not, to my mind, worthy of criticism or scorn. God bless him, he gave back 5%. He didn't have to. And my guess is, he's paying taxes on it first; if not, I'd like to know how he avoided it, because I'd like to do the same (i.e., give money to the Church--my employer--pre-tax).
The thing that is very fair to criticize is the lavish spending and lifestyle for him and his family, at a time when he can't seem to find much to cut in discretionary spending, and he has the affrontery to pillory people of means, who spend their own money on high living, and are--in his framing, greedy and selfish and unpatriotic, because they aren't willing to be told, endlessly, that no matter how much they pay, it's never "fair," and never enough.
I don't begrudge the president a vacation, or one for his family; and it's right that the taxpayer pay for his security. But, seriously, the Bahamas? Your children couldn't go to Disneyland? To Virginia Beach? Even to a private beach somewhere on the U.S. coast?
GrandpaMark said...
Am I wrong in remembering the Obamas' had $300.00 or so in charitable contributions prior to his run for President?
That was probably Biden. One year his number was $120.00.
@Fr Martin Frock wrote:
"The thing that is very fair to criticize is the lavish spending and lifestyle for him and his family, at a time when he can't seem to find much to cut in discretionary spending, and he has the affrontery to pillory people of means, who spend their own money on high living, and are--in his framing, greedy and selfish and unpatriotic, because they aren't willing to be told, endlessly, that no matter how much they pay, it's never "fair," and never enough."
Thread winner. Austerity for thee, but not for ME.
This 5% ploy is a huge political mis-step; if it enraged a leftist like Cohen, you can be sure the damages are multiplying. Someone, somewhere, is calculating the total cost of the First Family's taxpayer-funded vacations. 5% of that sum will be ugly.
So . . . expect a "better looking" faux pas shortly. Joe and Mika are standing by, eager to distract us again.
Fr Martin Fox said...And my guess is, he's paying taxes on it first; if not, I'd like to know how he avoided it, because I'd like to do the same (i.e., give money to the Church--my employer--pre-tax).
All you have to do is agree with your employer on a lower salary. It's never an expense for them, it's never income to you.
The Obama issue is more complicated because there's a legally set salary number, so changing the gross isn't possible.
Marshal,
That was probably Biden. One year his number was $120.00.
I seem to remember Gore's charitable giving being in the same ballpark during the 2000 race.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
I seem to remember Gore's charitable giving being in the same ballpark during the 2000 race.
That surprises me a little. He comes from money and a family of politicians with high aspirations. Biden's a nobody from Scranton who woke up in Delaware after a happy hour gone wrong.
Given Obama's math skills and generally poor understanding of how things work, I do not believe he is fool enough to do his own taxes, and no taxpreparer is going to miss taking the charitable deduction, as well as every other applicable deduction.
Obama taking a 5% pay cut seems like good politics to me. Althouse is over thinking this (part of her job description as a member of the intelligentsia, I guess). Most indies who are not obsessed with politics will just say "good for him" when they hear that Obama took a 5% pay cut.
Let's generate a groundswell of support in the media to get Obama to release his tax returns next year.
He's only donating 5% of his presidential salary, which is a meager $400K a year. Let's see how much more he's raking in above that.
Hey, if it was necessary to make Romney release his returns just for wanting to be president, it's only fair to require it of the person who actually is president.
I seem to remember Gore's charitable giving being in the same ballpark during the 2000 race.
Gore epitomizes Fen's law, whether it's charitable giving, ethical business practices, treatment of women, or environmental protection. There is no bigger contradiction of words to actions than the Goracle. He was a penurious miser when it came to charitable giving until it came to light publicly. Biden and John Kerry the same.
We gave more in charitable giving that Bore did and we certainly don't come from his background.
"He won't even feel his sacrifice. And if he does, he can ease his tiny pains with another deluxe vacation and a few more concerts at the White House performed by whichever pop stars his daughters are enthusing over this month."
TRUTH TO POWER!
But the rubes keep voting for such as him.
Obama's version of "Let them eat cake."
Fr Martin Fox said...
The thing that is very fair to criticize is the lavish spending and lifestyle
Interesting criticism given the lifestyle of the last pope.
National, or religious, leaders will almost always have a more lavish lifestyle than the average Joe, whatever their personal tastes. Most of the money in both cases goes on security. Short of imposing a confinement to the White House/Vatican for the duration of their term I am not sure how this major expense can be reasonably avoided. I doubt that there a significant differences in the operating costs of the Bush and Obama White Houses.
What is the $ amount which would be considered "significant?"
Interesting criticism given the lifestyle of the last pope.
Which is fallacious reasoning on your part (tu quoque) and has nothing to do with Obama's actions. But, we've never had a shortage of apologists for Obama or haters of Catholicism.
Seeing Red said...
What is the $ amount which would be considered "significant?"
The $100,000 plus the Obama's donated to Fisher House would be significant in my eyes.
Problem: In looking at several allegedly official tax returns for the Obamas...I can't tell if it was for 2011 or 2012, or both [reported for both]...or whether it's been a habit and to which Fisher House organization...I'm presuming Friends of Fisher House-Illinois.
No fucking matter, $100,000 to Fisher House is a grand act...even if it is apparently by a man I have less use for than yesterday's spit. The lesson is even the worst schmucks can do right things now and then...like a broken watch is correct twice a day.
Puzzle: Why isn't Obama's largess with Fisher House made more of than this tiny 5% crap?
Last Question: What is behind his affection for Fisher House? It is his largest contribution by a factor of 20 to 1...in most cases 40 to 1.
DADvocate said...
haters of Catholicism.
Don't hate Catholicism. Probably have a greater overall level agreement with the current Pope than most posters.
Interesting criticism given the lifestyle of the last pope.
I would put Obama's lifestyle up against the last Pope's. Two skiing trips for the kids this year, plus a trip to the Carribean. Separate vacation for the Mrs. And, seemingly weekly trips popping around the country for photo ops, which not only require his very own 747, but also involving numerous other planes (typically not included when calculating the cost of these trips), private choppers, armored limos, etc. Likely much larger security detail too than the Pontiff.
Interestingly though, if the previous couple of Popes were too extravigant, the current one is anything but, refusing the live in the Papal apartments, or even wear the shiny red shoes. I am not RC, but think that this is going to play well with many of the Roman Catholics living in abject poverty around the world. I don't think that he is doing this for that reason, but rather, may have be selected at least partially for his humility and lack of ostentation.
And, I don't think that it is just Obama, but rather, this sort of spending seems endemic throughout much of the appointed class in his Administration. I think that it was Bush(43) who supposedly banned most of his cabinet secretaries from having private jets. Now, they all seem to have them, along with protection details, etc., and a lot of undersecretaries, etc. seem to be getting chauffered cars and protection details too. And, I think that while you see some of this with Republicans, I think that it is obviously more endemic with Dems, as evidenced by Pelosi demanding an upscale jet for her frequent trips back home in SF. Rush calls them the "regime", and I think that there is an awful lot of sort of thing that we have seen over the years with communist countries, where everyone is equal, but some are far, far, more equal, living the lives of ultimate luxury, while their subjects are suffering mightedly, and, even starving.
Bruce Hayden said...
Interestingly though, if the previous couple of Popes were too extravigant, the current one is anything but, refusing the live in the Papal apartments, or even wear the shiny red shoes. I am not RC, but think that this is going to play well with many of the Roman Catholics living in abject poverty around the world. I don't think that he is doing this for that reason, but rather, may have be selected at least partially for his humility and lack of ostentation.
Which will be a notable change from the last two occupants of the position.
Bruce Hayden said...
I think that it was Bush(43) who supposedly banned most of his cabinet secretaries from having private jets.
Can't find any evidence for this, but it misses the point. Most spending goes on security and I doubt that this is much different between the two administrations. The killing of a President or family member would not be good for the US. Not just for the loss of the individual but much more for the almost inevitable stupidity of the subsequent response if a foreign national was responsible. Given this prospect, the price tag doesn't look as bad.
I would personally much prefer all Presidents to more of the people, but it is not happening in the current environment. It's a sick sad world we live in.
I'm getting the impression that, years too late, Obama's Enablers have finally figured out what they have been propping up.
ARM said:"I would personally much prefer all Presidents to more of the people, but it is not happening in the current environment. It's a sick sad world we live in."
Crocodile tears,
2 of the last 3 presidents were close friends with unrepentant terrorists, and the 3rd violated every provision of the Violence Against Women Act at least once.
Democrats/liberals had assassination fantasies against W, applauded when a guy threw a shoe at him, and accused him of engineering or allowing the deaths of 3k citizens for political purposes.
No such hatred, bile, or violence has been directed at Democrat politicians for Republicans/conservatives.
If society is poisoned or sick, it is because of democrats/liberals/progressives who embrace violence and hatred toward anyone who stands between them and their goals, and their allies who ignore the violence and hatred perpetrated by their fellow travelers.
That includes such people as ARM, Inga, garage, phx, Andy R., and their ilk.
If hypocrisy was painful, they wouldn't be able to type due to the agony.
Nathan Alexander said...
one of the most unhinged posts ever on Althouse.
Well, if we're going to veer off into Catholicism, I'll veer off into Obama's insulting "math."
His proposed new budget calls for capping retirement accounts at $3M. But wait for the rationale! Savers will earn $205k/year with $3M in the bank, says our mathemagician-in-chief.
That's an interest rate of roughly 6.7 -- SIX POINT SEVEN -- PERCENT. Savers can't get that rate ANY WHERE. 30-year Treasuries are yielding under two percent, for f*ck's sake. How stupid does he think we are? Plenty stupid -- and he'd be right.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/05/Obama-Budget-to-Target-Success-by-Capping-Retirement-Accounts-at-3-Million
I said...
The thing that is very fair to criticize is the lavish spending and lifestyle...
AReasonableMan said:
Interesting criticism given the lifestyle of the last pope.
I'm sorry, but that's an ignorant comment.
Are you actually suggesting Pope Benedict lived an extravagant lifestyle?
Your evidence, please?
He can also likely declare his stunt as tax deductible.
Just sayin'.
Buffett did not beg to pay his fair share. He demagogued that issue well, however.
He's worth $40 billion or more, and his income is $40 million--on which he's willing to pay more taxes.
Do you really think he's making less than 1% on his money?
He avoids taxes in many ways, particularly by not paying a dividend.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/greg-mankiw-warren-buffett_n_2194085.html
P.S. I assume that Buffett pays the highest rate on his salary--but his salary $100,000. Most of his other income comes in other formats.
More tax avoidance. If he was paid as much as CEOs of other companies, he would be paying a much higher tax rate overall.
Father Fox:
I'm not sure it will accomplish what you want, but the only way I can think of to return 5% of your salary to your employer on a pre-tax basis is to have a 5% salary reduction.
Seems to me that the President's 5% could have been better spent on a charity, rather than the government.
Patrick:
I realize that; but for reasons I can explain if you want, that's not a good idea in my opinion. Thanks all the same.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा