Barack Obama is trying his hand at uninformed populist demagoguing again, this time evoking private jet travel, which must come at the expense of “kids.” This is the sort of us/them rhetoric we have come to expect, soon no doubt to be followed by heartfelt plea for “civility.”
But one thing seems unclear: How does an attack on private jet travel square with his present efforts to wow Wall Street fat cats and the junkets to Vail, Martha’s Vineyard, and Costa del Sol? Or for that matter with the once tax-exempt Kerry yacht, the private-jet networking of green capitalist Al Gore, and Nancy Pelosi’s government-paid-for jet flights back to the Bay Area?
And when he associates a $250,000 income — about $125,000 net after federal, state, payroll, and local taxes in most of blue-state America — with the class capable of private jet-owning, we are once again back to tuning up 21st-century cars and inflating tires in lieu of drilling for oil. There is an art to populist demagoguery of the sort that Huey Long and even Ralph Nader used to excel at, but it falls flat — like millionaire John Edwards’s “two Americas” populism — when Ivy League–educated, mansion-living politicos try it without requisite preparation and study.
Hey, you know who has a pretty sweet private jet?
The guy flying that pimped-out VC-25 all across the globe.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll this private Jet talk.....when did Barack Obama turn into Sean Hannity?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePopulist rhetoric only works on a peer to peer basis.
Remember “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? ... I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”
Obama thinks his experience compares to ordinary Americans. Instead, he comes off sounding elite and arrogant, and completely out of touch with those with whom he empathizes. It's a fraud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI seriously doubt that Obama has ever done the "requisite preparation and study" ... his greatest skill seems to be basketball (which he plays at the Hawaiian high school level) ... but if he has, he sure hasn't demonstrated it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see your arguments. You paraphrase Obama as making an "attack" on private jet travel that can't be squared with the fact that he deals with a lot of folks who travel on private jets.
But he's clearly not saying that people should refrain from private jet travel. He's saying that if you can afford private jet travel, it's time to return to the pre-existing tax rate (not even a new, higher rate) for owning a corporate jet.
Likewise, I don't see any assumptions or "associations" in Obama's statements that having a $250,000+ income means you own a private jet. Those are, obviously, separate tax proposals. And while Obama generally sees those two as both high-income (or high-wealth) categories where people can afford a bit more tax (say, for example, a return to the rates under Ronald Reagan?!), I don't see him making the obviously ridiculous claim that you suggest he is making (that everyone earning $250,000 or more can own a private jet).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGet some glasses.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have to wonder if some of the stimulus money went unemployed people with a computer. They can earn their pay by going on conservative blogs pretending to be reasonable and civil conservatives with a heart. Would it really surprise anyone if this is true? If it's not true than the "Big Tent" is starting to resemble the condition of the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is interesting that you didn't respond to his argument. Instead, you took the nasty road and insulted him. I don't know if Vonnegut is a liberal or a conservative, but I'm fairly certain that there is no rule banning non-conservatives from this site.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, I took such a nasty road; we'll all need a shower. There is no doubt non-conservatives aren't banned on The Corner, because about half the comments you could just as well see on the Huffington Post or Daily Beast.
It is becoming more and more obvious NRO has the least conservative audience of any conservative media outlet. I only wonder how many of these non-conservatives are paid to visit the site and make comments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe nice thing about thi particular Obama's BS is that these tax brakes were provided by Porculus package. When Obama talked about tax breaks included in Stimulus that he was proud of, he meant extension of tax breaks for corporate jets that were introduced in 2001 to help Air jet industry after 9/11, then Porculus extended them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseperhaps you should read it again ... VDH clearly says that Obama is trying to associate the 250K crowd with the jet owning crowd ... not that they are the same people ... that is what he means by associate ... now do you get it ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"He's saying that if you can afford private jet travel, it's time to return to the pre-existing tax rate (not even a new, higher rate) for owning a corporate jet."
Um, no. I'm pretty sure Obama specifically cited ending the tax breaks for corporate jets (that the Democrats reauthorized in 2009).
"Likewise, I don't see any assumptions or "associations" in Obama's statements that having a $250,000+ income means you own a private jet."
It is repeated often, virtually every time it comes up, by Dems advocating 'tax the rich', that they don't mean the middle class, just those making $250K or more per year. Corporate jets, by definition, are owned by corporations, of course, not by individuals. Those would be private jets. But every smart monkey knows Obama is merely stoking class envy, that 'corporate jets' has focus-grouped as an icon of the hated rich, and serves as a good populist symbol for campaign rhetoric. It's OK, though. Few reasonable people take anything this clown says seriously anymore.
"And while Obama generally sees those two as both high-income (or high-wealth) categories where people can afford a bit more tax..."
Well, again, Obama specifically cited corporate jets, and any end of tax breaks on them will accrue to corporations, not individual evil rich people, and those corporations simply raise prices and rates to pass the added expense down to.... yeah, you guessed it - the blessed middle class Obama claims he stands to protect.
But, again, it's OK, nothing to get het up about. The guy talks BS all day every day and couldn't care less about corporate jet tax breaks beyond their usefulness as campaign rhetoric against The Evil Ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse*sigh*
Disregard my post below. Because I keep getting involuntarily logged out and losing entries, I wrote it on Works and then cut and pasted it - into the wrong thread.
Sorry, Vonnegut.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAm I the only one old enough to remember the ill-fated luxury yacht tax which didn't hurt yacht purchasers at all (they just purchased from non-US sellers) but devastated the US boat building industry, thereby putting a bunch of middle class craftsmen out of work?
That said, as a retired tax lawyer I am firmly in favor of eliminating virtually all corporate "tax expenditures," but it needs to be done across the board -- without picking winners and losers based on politics or campaign- style demagoguery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut that would put 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen with nothing to do. On the other hand...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll just be happy knowing that Jonah will finally be paying his fair share.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love you, Victor Davis Hanson, probably more than your bride (no, I was not celebrating at Time Square late last Friday night).
But come on, Man. What is Obama supposed to say? Do you really think he is going to say, "I have no clue at this point as to what to do about the economy"?
Did Harold Camping admit he was wrong on May 22nd? No, what he really meant was October 21, not May 21!
Did Obama say recovery by the end his first term? No, what Obama really meant was recovery by the end of his second term.
Yea, thats the ticket...
Come Election Day, 2012, we are about to find out if our nation has a majority of voters stupid enough to fall for a thinner, more multicultural version of Tommy Flanagan a second time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst promote the market for "private" jets, then for political points, kill the market for "private" jets.
"OK boys, we are shutting the line down. Good luck on finding jobs out there."
Are those federal scholar ships going to include a bean ration?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama has absolutely no class whatsoever. He's a shameless liar. Does he really not remember that it was the democrats own stimulus that he signed into law that gave those tax breaks to those evil jet owners? Or is it that he does remember, but he's so used to getting away with saying whatever the hell he wants because he knows no one in the MSM is going to call him on it? How is it the the "smartest president ever!" doesn't remember who gave out those tax breaks?
And then I get to be lectured to about "the children" by a man who gave a pittance to charity according to his tax return, while my husband and I gave A LOT more than he did. He's all for "spreading the wealth around" as long as it's not his own. Rich liberals are the hypocritical equivalent of closeted gay Republicans running on family values.
If he keeps giving press conferences and speeches demonizing Republicans like that, he's just going to fire up the conservative base even more. What a friggen genius.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, all the private jet blather is small change -- literally. Just a sop to his base, I'm sure is all he meant.
But did he accidentally throw a bone to a group that is decidedly NOT his base? By that I mean frugal-minded Americans who eschew debt and actively save. He said they could have higher interest rates!
Like dangling a carrot: "If I don't get what I want, markets will punish borrowers and reward savers."
Does he realize there's a constituency for that? Does he think we all live beyond our means?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse