Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Investor Business Daily tackled Obama’s ignorance on economics yesterday that I wrote about a few days ago.

Indeed, data from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation show 20% of those with capital gains in 2005 had annual incomes less than $50,000. So Obama’s “tax-the-rich” plan to jack up cap gains rates would in fact become a huge middle-class tax hike.

Add to this his idea to lift the Social Security tax cap on incomes above $97,000, which would hit many of the same people, and you get the idea that Obama doesn’t understand economics at all.

Maybe it’s that he and his wife, Michelle, just reported $4.2 million in income for the last year — with little or none of it in the form of capital gains.

Whatever the case, he obviously doesn’t get it. He’d rather lash out at people he thinks are rich, even if it means bringing in less revenue to the federal government, a point that Gibson clearly made.

What it comes down to, and the word “fairness” is the tell, is that he wants what all Socialist want….redistribution of wealth. How dare you become successful when so many people are suffering. But I will help out your guilt little one by taking as much as I can from your success and giving it to those I feel deserve it more.

Some call him a lightweight on economic issues….I disagree. He knows what he is doing. He is following Karl Marx playbook to the “T”

also:

The Obama Double Standard

Peter Wehner explores some of the vitriol leveled at ABC and the two moderators of the last Democrat debate and doesn’t like the double standard at play:

And what did Stephanopoulos and Gibson do to earn this scorn? Why, they asked Barack Obama some probing questions, including one about his past relationships with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. and a former leader of the Weather Underground, William Ayers.

Consider this thought experiment: Assume that a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination spent two decades at a church whose senior pastor was a white supremacist who uttered ugly racial (as well as anti-American) epithets from the pulpit. Assume, too, that this minister wasn’t just the candidate’s pastor but also a close friend, the man who married the candidate and his wife, baptized his two daughters, and inspired the title of his best-selling book.

In addition, assume that this GOP candidate, in preparing for his entry into politics, attended an early organizing meeting at the home of a man who, years before, was involved in blowing up multiple abortion clinics and today was unrepentant, stating his wish that he had bombed even more clinics. And let’s say that the GOP candidate’s press spokesman described the relationship between the two men as “friendly.”

Do you think that if those moderating a debate asked the GOP candidate about these relationships for the first time, after 22 previous debates had been held, that other journalists would become apoplectic at the moderators for merely asking about the relationships? Not only would there be a near-universal consensus that those questions should be asked; there would be a moral urgency in pressing for answers. We would, I predict, be seeing an unprecedented media “feeding frenzy.”

The truth is that a close relationship with a white supremacist pastor and a friendly relationship with an abortion clinic bomber would, by themselves, torpedo a conservative candidate running for president. There is an enormous double standard at play here, one rooted in the fawning regard many journalists have for Barack Obama. They have a deep, even emotional, investment in his candidacy. And, as we are seeing, they will turn on anyone, even their colleagues, who dare raise appropriate and searching questions–the kind journalists are supposed to ask. The reaction to Stephanopoulos and Gibson is a revealing and depressing glimpse into the state of modern journalism.

When the nominee is finally picked and the general debates start up….will any of the MSM talking heads dare to ask these kind of character questions of Obama?