Obama thinks $9,000 is “chump change”?

From his appearance on MTV this weekend, Comrade Obama clarifies his ideas on redistributing income. And further illustrates just how out of touch he is with working Americans. (h/t: Ed Morrissey )

Sway: Our next question is from Matt from Iowa: “If your desire is to spread the wealth around, what incentive is there for me to try to work hard? If I am only going to get more taken away from me, the more money I make, why wouldn’t I just slide into a life of relaxation and let rich people take care of me? And a lot of people are asking similar questions, and I wanted you to specify. What does this mean exactly?”

Obama: What is amazing to me is this whole notion that somehow everybody is just looking out for themselves. I mean, the fact is, we just talked about student loans. When young people who have the drive and the skill to go to college can’t afford to go to college, how do you think we pay for scholarships or loan programs? That money doesn’t grow on trees. It’s got to come from somewhere, and the attitude that I have is that, if we want to grow our economy, the way it grows is from the bottom up. You don’t just give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires. What you do is make sure the tax code is fair. I want to give a tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans, but in order to pay for that, I’m going to take the tax rates back to what they were in the 1990s for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. Now for people who are making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, if they are paying 2 or 3 percent higher in taxes, the notion that they’re somehow going to stop working, or that this young man is going to not want to be successful, that just doesn’t make any sense. Back in the 1990s, we created more millionaires, more billionaires, because the economy was growing, everything was strong, at every income bracket, people were doing well. So this idea, that somehow everybody is just on their own and shouldn’t be concerned about other people who are coming up behind them, that’s the kind of attitude that I want to end when I am president.

Sway: Just out of curiosity, for those that are being taxed that are making more than $250,000 a year, how much difference would it be from how they are being taxed today?

Obama: Well, right now, they are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed at 39.6 percent. You are talking about a 3.6 percent difference, and for the average person who is making half a million, a million dollars, now people like you Sway, that’s chump change, that’s nothing.

An additional 3.6% of $250,000 (what Obama is touting as the beginning level of his tax increases) comes to $9,000. And that's in addition to the $90,000 the federal government already takes in income tax.

But given the unprecedented fundraising his campaign has pulled off due to fraudulent and untraceable donations (of the $150 million he raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet), I guess I can see how Obama would lose track of the value of money.
---
RELATED: More info on Obama's rampant online donor fraud.

I work for the credit card processing company that is culpable for allowing the DNC and the Obama Campaign to get away with rampant online donor fraud.

In a deliberate attempt to evade campaign financing laws, the Obama Campaign turned off certain security features on their online contribution page, which basically enables anyone in the world with a Visa/Mastercard to make donations in almost any amounts.

I have over 7 years experience in the payment services industry, and I have never seen such flagrant disregard for online security as I have seen on Obama’s Website and ACTBLUE (DNC PAC). In an age of identity theft and rampant online fraud, it is unconscionable for anyone to maintain an ecommerce site without the basic security features. Yet, the majority of Democrats do. (McCain’s website and the Republican sites are in compliance with security regulations.)

I have followed the trail from the DNC to a PAC called ACTBLUE, which is responsible for the ecommerce portion of Democratic Party websites. ACTBLUE contracts the online fundraising portion to a company called, AUBURN QUAD. Auburn Quad has developed a software program, called Indigo, to make fund raising quick and easy. The secret sauce of Indigo appears to be the part of the program that turns off the Address Verification and CVV2 security features, which allows for untraceable, unlimited online donations.

There is no plausible explanation for these security violations other than wanting to skirt around campaign finance rules. I would vigorously argue that a large portion of Obama’s $579 million in individual contributions is in violation of campaign finance laws. Many donations may have been made by non US citizens, made in excess of the $2,300 individual limit, and made on stolen credit card numbers.

A Twitter buddy of mine tested this for himself, making a successful fraudulent donation using his credit card with a fake name & address. It was accepted by the Obama site, while a similar donation was automatically rejected by the McCain site.