by j. wright
It's amazing the things one can discover from listening to a few minutes of talk radio or watching some sane TV news broadcasts... certainly little the famed mainstream media cares to divulge.
I "learned" today that our president, Barack H. Obama, believes that our current federal income tax rates are the lowest in recent history, lower even than the Ronald W. Reagan era, and in his opinion it's only fair to raise income taxes on couples making more than $250,000, or individuals making more tha $200,000 annually. This he told the Republican leaders who met with him earlier this week at the White House.
While most of the Republicans present rolled their eyes at this assertion regarding Reagan's tax rates it was explained to the president that Reagan era rates were actually lower. What is different today are the loop holes in place that Reagan previously abolished. What is also true is that tax revenues today ARE LOWER than in the Reagan era, all things taken into consideration.
In explanation, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was quick to counter the president's claim on low tax rates, saying, "...actually, our corporate tax rates are the highest in the world." President Obama acknowledged that U.S. corporate tax rates are higher than most other nations.
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) explained "... that's a big deal. The high rates hurts American competitiveness and job creation - so the folks that are trying to earn money, get a job, so they can pay that 'low tax rate,' they can't even do that right now because we aren't competitive with the rest of the world."
It was reported too that President Obama is not interested in slowing or lowering the incessant government spending now in place, rather he wants more money to spend, ergo the request for an addional $2 trillion to be added to our national debt limit. With that, recall that two weeks ago he requested a "clean up or down vote" on raising the debt limit. The Republican led House gave it to him a day ago and it lost big time. Some eighty-two (82) Democrats voted no including Nancy Pelosi. Afterward the White House and the Democrat leaders claimed the vote was a fraud, a joke. That after giving them what they had asked for. One radio news commentator used the expression, "You give me that apple and I'll let you paint the fence white." Too damn funny IMO.
Later, on the Neil Cavuto financial program on FOX News television, Neil Cavuto exchanged views on the current jobless rate with a Democrat House member from California who repeated several times that in order to keep our economy "growing" we must maintain the same fiscal policies that have given us a net gain under Obama of 125 million new jobs.
Cavuto countered saying that they has been NO net gain in jobs. The Democrat kept smiling and maintained that Neil was wrong. What is true, Neil's staff, (along with Roger Hedgecock's of conservative talk radio using goverment stats available on line) found that under Obama, since January of 2009, the country has suffered a net LOSS of 2.5 million jobs; a 3.75 million swing from what the Democrat politician falsely claimed. My question: who informs these people?
A few weeks ago, Cavuto had a similar exchange with an Obama supporter who maintained over and over that thirty-one (31) new drilling permits had been issued for the Gulf since the BP spill, Cavuto said "No, only three (3) have been issued."
Cavuto was proven right (again using stats gleaned from .gov web sites.) My question remains; Who informs these people? Of is it their practice to lie, keep lying, and maybe convince enough folks that a lie is an actual fact?
If the financial crisis that caused this ongoing recession was brought about under President George W. Bush, it's also true that this "recovery" (or lack of same) belongs to Obama. It ain't working.
Rätsel der Woche: Jetzt wird's haarig
12 minutes ago