Saturday, March 14, 2009

Obama Budget Page 11, Figure 9: Written By French Socialist Economists!

"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not." -- Page 5 Of Obama's Budget Plan

Why does this administration imply that success is gained only by cheating and "the wealthy" are somehow not playing by the rules?

And remember, when someone calls Obama a socialist, he calls them on the phone to scold him.

In case you're still not convinced that President Obama is a socialist, The Wall Street Journal gives you another example.

Turn immediately to page 11. There sits a chart called Figure 9. This is the Rosetta Stone to the presidential mind of Barack Obama. Memorize Figure 9, and you will never be confused. Not happy, perhaps, but not confused.

One finds many charts in a federal budget, most attributed to such deep mines of data as the Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The one on page 11 is attributed to "Piketty and Saez."

Either you know instantly what "Piketty and Saez" means, or you don't. If you do, you spent the past two years working to get Barack Obama into the White House.

If you don't, their posse has a six-week head start on you.

Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, French economists, are rock stars of the intellectual left. Their specialty is "earnings inequality" and "wealth concentration."

Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the rich.

As described in Mr. Obama's budget, these two economists have shown that by the end of 2004, the top 1% of taxpayers "took home" more than 22% of total national income. This trend, Fig. 9 notes, began during the Reagan presidency, skyrocketed through the Clinton years, dipped after George Bush beat Al Gore, then marched upward. Widening its own definition of money-grubbers, the budget says the top 10% of households "held" 70% of total wealth.

Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute criticized the Piketty-Saez study on these pages in October 2007. Whatever its merits, their "Top 1%" chart has become a totemic obsession in progressive policy circles.

Turn to page five of Mr. Obama's federal budget, and one may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:

"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."

"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and

"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."

Bungalow Bill reminds Obama to revisit the works of Karl Marx:

Obama is using language to convince the working class to hate and turn on the those who provide jobs. Obama’s coming after the wealth in this country, and he hopes you will jump on and demand equality while he destroys it. Once he destroys is with the evident class welfare in his budget, he will destroy all of our wealth and our chances to grow more wealth. Obama claims he is not a socialist, but he attacks the capitalists in this country like Marx once attacked the capitalists. The Obama budget screams socialism.

Allow me to yet again define socialism for Dear Leader:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, and would represent a transitional stage between the capitalist and communist modes of production.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit


  1. Americans can escape Obama taxes by use of offshore holding companies and offshore trusts:

    corporate inversion
    offshore corporation
    incorporate offshore
    offshore banking
    offshore packages
    offshore incorporations

  2. I'm hard pressed to see how returning marginal tax brackets to where they were in the late 90's is 'Socialism'.

    Further, taking Obama's budget document as presented, they are forecasting Federal Spending as a % of GDP to rise to 22.3% in 2016 (his 8th years), vs 20.9% in 2008 (bush's last year), an increase of 140 bp. Now we can debate the numbers underlying this. However if we look at spending under Bush's years total federal spending was 20.9% his last year vs. 18.4% in 2000 (Clinton's last year). This is a 250 basis point increase. Why is Obama then the Socialist and not Bush?

    There are a number of legitimate points to raise against the budget, but lets be realistic on what is going on and do without the inflamatory rhetoric.

  3. Yeah, I get it, but these two are notoriously famous Socialist! I don't want them anywhere near OUR federal budget!

    We have enough idiots in our government, on both sides, that can mismanage our money