The Blue and “Teh Ghey”—A Brewing Civil War on the Right?

Dec 29 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Beware the homosexual conservative! That’s what some social-conservative groups are warning organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference this week, as two socially conservative advocacy groups announced that they would be boycotting the yearly political convention, started by the American Conservative Union and Young Americans for Freedom. In the latest of a series of self-immolations, the group Concerned Women of America and the Family Research Council announced Monday that they would be boycotting CPAC because conservative group GOProud had been invited to participate. Today, conservative media watchdog group Media Research Council announced that it was also considering boycotting CPAC. GOProud, founded by Christopher R. Barron and Jimmy LaSalvia, advocates small government conservatism at the level of federal public policy, and is famous for becoming the first gay rights organization to campaign against Democratic candidates, and for Republicans; their commercial, titled “ The Real Democrats of Washington, DC ,” attacked the openly gay Representative, Barney Frank, as well as Sen. Barbara Boxer and soon-to-be-former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Conservative punditress and former National Organization for Women chapter president Tammy Bruce was invited by Barron and LaSalvia to take a leadership position in GOProud, adding to their right-wing street cred by leaps and bounds. GOProud has been a controversial issue at CPAC , as some leading social conservatives were afraid that they would catch the virulent and deadly virus called “Teh Ghey,” if they were seen in public with conservative people who were sexually attracted to members of the same sex. Or something. I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me, and is legal. The first hint that social conservatives might have a problem with inviting Chris Barron—who is hardly a squishy moderate, if being the organizer of the Draft Cheney 2012 organization is any measure of Barron’s conservative chops—was in 2010, when anti-gay activist and “Young Americans for Freedom” organizer Ryan Sorba was invited to give a speech about his efforts to expose ACORN’s anti-American activities… and decided to condemn CPAC and everyone attending. I’m sad to say that I shared the stage with Sorba, as I had been invited to speak on the panel for my efforts to expose government corruption going on in the People’s Republik of Athens, Ohio . As I say in a TownHall.com column about Sorba’s CPAC shenanigans, “every single person on stage with him was fighting the urge to facepalm .” I know I certainly was. If you recall, Sorba’s on-stage bigotry was met by the filled-to-capacity Marriott Wardman Park Hotel auditorium booing him off the stage, much to the confusion and chagrin of progressive pundits who were hoping to see applause and approval. While progressives are salivating over the idea of a crack-up on the Right over distractions such as GOProud members’ sexual orientations, we need to remember that such a potentially disasterous civil war isn’t inevitable, and is definitely something to be avoided . So stop trying to start a civil war and start fighting the real enemy, you guys. As we head into 2011 with a new majority in the US House of Representatives, and across America in local and state governments, obviously the Left will try to drive us apart and get us fighting against ourselves. It’s the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer. Set Group A against Group B, let them fight and bleed each other, and then conquer both. One would think that conservatives of all stripes would jump at the chance to forge new alliances with interested parties who share our core beliefs of self-determination and individualism, yet there are some among us who seem more interested in starting petty arguments and maintaining purities that never existed. What some social conservatives fail to realize—willfully so, it sometimes seems—is that there’s plenty of  room for them in the movement. Social conservatives… sit at the table with us. Pull up a seat. We’ve got a lot of work to do, and we can’t take back America without your SoCon goodness. All we—and well, anyone else in what Barron terms the “leave-us-alone movement”, the “I can run my life better than Obama and the Democrats can” movement—want is for you to stop poking the rest of us in the eye, so we can see where we’re going, and where we need to be. — Jesse Hathaway survived the progressive re-education camps of Ohio University and the People’s Republik of Athens, and now lives and blogs in beautiful Myrtle Beach, SC. Follow him on Teh Twitter , and become part of his Right Turns Only posse.

Originally posted here:
The Blue and “Teh Ghey”—A Brewing Civil War on the Right?

No responses yet

Shepard Smith Goes Nuclear on GOP “Grinches” Over 9/11 Health Bill

Dec 24 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

Many outlets, including the Huffington Post , Mediaite , and the Examiner , are increasingly taking notice of Fox News anchor (and longtime left-wing drama queen ) Shepard Smith for his alleged courage and principle in distancing himself from the rest of the channel’s right-wing propagandizing. He’s currently being lauded for having taken up the cause of a controversial bill to provide medical care for 9/11 first responders, angrily unloading on Republican Grinches who would dare steal Christmas from American heroes: We’re able to put a 52 story building so far down there at Ground Zero, we’re able to pay for tax cuts for billionaires who don’t need them and it’s not going to stimulate the economy. But we can’t give health care to Ground Zero first responders who ran right into the fire? Went down there to save people? Do people know what this city was like that day? People were walking over bridges, they were covered in ash, they were running for their lives, they were crying, their family members were dead. And these people ran to Ground Zero to save people’s lives. And we’re not going to even give them medicine for the illnesses they got down there? It’s disgusting, it’s a national disgrace, it’s a shame and everybody who voted against should have to stand up and account for himself or herself. The Examiner’s Elliot Levin compares Smith to several of his Fox News colleagues, including Sean Hannity, who has endorsed the bill’s purpose but expressed reservations about the particulars , such as concern for potential abuse by illegal immigrants, suspicion about the Democrats’ refusal to pass it via simple majority in the House when they had the chance, and scorn for Rep. Anthony Weiner’s unwillingness to allow that reading a bill might be an important prerequisite for supporting it. Levin says: While Fox’s primtime lineup of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and to a lesser degree, Greta Van Susstren, are all card-carrying Republicans and openly use their shows to press a conservative agenda, Smith, who anchors the 3pm and 7pm shows, is well-known and liked throughout the TV news world for his passionate and apolitical perspectives. He has also broken away from the typical conservative line in the past on issues such as torture. Smith is at his best when it comes to hard news stories, such as car chases, wars, and natural disasters, but when he steps into politics he epitomizes the Fox News slogan of ‘fair and balanced,’ speaking his mind regardless of what his fellow anchors may be saying or believing. Smith’s caterwauling certainly makes good on the “balance” part of the Fox promise, but “fair” is questionable.  He characterizes bill opponents as soulless monsters, who cannot possibly have legitimate reservations. But their reservations are indeed valid. At Politico , James Richardson explains : Republicans objected not to the compensation fund, rather to the way its coffers were filled. As usual, Democrats wanted a program paid for by a new tax — in this case, one on foreign-registered firms operating within the United States. As a matter of policy, Republicans oppose entitlement programs, both old and new, though ideological rigidity here takes second to honoring and caring for these emergency responders. For the Republican caucus, the key problem was the pay-for tax increase that Democrats engineered for the $7.4 billion measure. The GOP’s more wonkish members were concerned the tax increase might force closures of foreign-registered but domestic-operating firms that employ Americans. Others, were uneasy that the bill was not means tested. At Human Events , John Hayward points out that Smith-style emotionalism masks the fact that we have very good reason to tread slowly when entrusting Congress with the task of spending large sums of money: Nothing about the situation demanded the creation of an unlimited entitlement, or abandoning precautions against waste and fraud.  One of the first orders of business for the lame-duck Congress was shoveling another billion dollars into the Pigford fraud, where thousands of bogus claims have been filed. [NRB: see here for more on Pigford.] Maybe they should have saved that billion for the heroes of 9/11 instead. On top of Pigford, we’ve seen billions wasted in Medicare fraud, millions paid to convicts filing phony tax returns, and California Republican congressman Darrell Issa’s recent report that $125 billion in taxpayer money disappeared through “improper payments” over the past year.  I can’t find any reason to blindly trust this government to carefully manage a few billion more, especially when those demanding it maintain that no patriotic American can question them in any way.

See the original post:
Shepard Smith Goes Nuclear on GOP “Grinches” Over 9/11 Health Bill

No responses yet

Not EVERY Chilean rugby player is a cannibal! — In defense of generalizations

Dec 22 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Having spent too long as the Media Matters “watcher” for NewsReal , I’ve learned that “good writing” — if you’re a modern day “progressive” — equals “reads like it was typed up at the last minute by a moonlighting Groupon intern with Tourettes.” (For a classic example, see the lefty blogger being roundly mocked here — but it should go without saying: extreme language warning .) You can tell the writers at Mediaite are young lefties, too. Not because they swear a lot, but because (when they aren’t larding on the snarky snide) they dutifully parrot all the rhetorical tropes they learned in college. One of their lessons was: “When stuck for a response, accuse your debate opponent of ‘using generalizations.’” You’ll notice that leftists have recently rediscovered the phrase “ glittering generalities ” and enjoy using it to, er, generalize about Republican “propaganda.” (They must be getting bored with “the paranoid style” already…) And so we have Glenn David at Mediaite reporting on a recent exchange between Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter: Coulter then came out and agreed with this point while making blanket statements like, “Liberals think sending a check to the IRS constitutes charity,” as opposed to Republicans – especially Christians – who are “actually giving to poor people.” The generalizing was bad enough that O’Reilly at one point tried to bring her in line by saying, “You’re generalizing now.” …we could do without the “generalizing” rampant in this segment… “Generalizations”?! On an unscripted television segment that’s only a few minutes long — aired for an audience with an ever-shrinking attention span?!? Imagine… “Generalizations” and “blanket statements” have acquired an overblown toxic reputation (just below “hypocrisy” ) in the progressive moral handbook. It’s too bad Mediaite (and Bill O’Reilly) lean on that shaky crutch when pushed for something to say and some empty space that needs filling. O’Reilly is clearly just playing CYA and running down the clock; Mediaite’s excuse is even weaker. It’s a funny thing, but I’m old enough to remember when “using generalizations” was called “the way normal people talk.” As Dennis Prager has observed: If we can’t talk in sweeping generalities, then we might as well shut down all discourse about the human experience… Where there are no generalizations, there’s no wisdom. But generalization-phobia has trickled down (up?) from the academy, and we’re forced to endure exchanges like the following — also, interestingly, involving O’Reilly: O’REILLY: Do you have a problem in history when you were taught about World War II that Japanese attacked us? Do you have a problem with that? [Whoopi] GOLDBERG: I have a problem with that. O’REILLY: Do you? GOLDBERG: Yes. O’REILLY: But they attacked us? GOLDBERG: The Japanese – O’REILLY: Attacked us. GOLDBERG: — army attacked us. O’REILLY: The air force did. GOLDBERG: Sorry, the air force did. You understand my point? Of course, that painful “conversation” was prompted by one of those tedious “not ALL Muslims are terrorists” “arguments” we’re exposed to each day, like audible germs.

Read more:
Not EVERY Chilean rugby player is a cannibal! — In defense of generalizations

No responses yet

It’s Time To Put This Lame Duck Congress To Sleep Now

Dec 17 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

Bill O’Reilly led off his program The Factor last night with a denunciation of the pork-laden omnibus spending bill introduced by Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid at the last minute. O’Reilly called the 1,924-page $1.2 trillion bill an “outrage” and urged his viewers to press for its defeat. He was right, but also a bit late. In what was obviously a taped segment, O’Reilly was urging a protest against a bill full of obnoxious earmarks that Reid had pulled hours earlier. The people were already outraged at this very lame-brained, lame duck Congress, which should be put to sleep immediately to end our miseries. Thanks to the Internet and the tireless efforts of Tea Party activists, Congress was flooded with protests. Reid realized that he didn’t have the votes to push through his nearly 2000 page monstrosity this time. So, thankfully, he caved, but not before denouncing the Republican opposition and insisting that earmarks are what Congress is supposed to do under its “congressionally directed spending” authority. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives passed and sent to President Obama the bipartisan package extending the Bush tax cuts across the board for two years, providing additional tax cuts including a one-year payroll tax cut for most American workers, reducing the estate tax and extending unemployment benefits. This measure is a mixed bag. While certainly a far superior means for stimulating the economy than Obama’s failed spending program, we will be going into further debt as a result. Offsetting spending cuts must be one of the first orders of business of the new Congress next year. It’s now time for this very lame, lame duck Congress to adjourn and go home. Unfortunately, however, Reid and Pelosi are determined to torture us with attempts to ram through such pet projects of theirs as the partial amnesty for illegal immigrants known as the DREAM Act. We all must keep our guard up until one of the worst Congresses in American history limps over the finish line and is finally put to sleep. Joseph Klein is the author of a recent book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam

Go here to see the original:
It’s Time To Put This Lame Duck Congress To Sleep Now

No responses yet

Women Ask: “What’s in Santa’s Bag For Us?”

Dec 16 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress

A new survey by a Democratic polling firm shows President Obama still doing well with female voters.  The firm polled 608 women who voted for the president in 2008 but did not support a Democrat this year.  “Obama is still viewed favorably by 71 percent of these voters,” says the National Journal online, “while only 19 percent have a positive view of the Republican Party.”  Perhaps even more ominously for the GOP, “57 percent said that Democrats have a better understanding of issues and concerns that matter to them.  Only 14 percent said Republicans did.” This support seems to hinge, in other words, on whether the president works his magic – mainly on the economy – and gives them goodies.  “The economy remains the most important issue to women,” says the article, adding that a majority “of these Obama drop off voters saw the election as a referendum on the economy and three quarters of those who defected to the GOP said they were motivated by economic issues.” Theoretically, there is no reason Republicans in Congress need fear these “Wal-Mart Moms,” as the media has come to call them.  But what rings ominously is the possibility that as long as the economy improves, most women may still give Democrats the credit.  They may be so conditioned to seeing the Left as the bringer of goodies that they do not step back and consider whether it will be the Dems who bring back prosperity, or whether it will actually come from the GOP. “Taken together,” the article goes on to say, “the survey results suggest that women who are homemakers are feeling the pinch of the recession most acutely.  They also suggest that if the economy doesn’t recover, they may not return to Obama and the Democrats after all.” But why would they automatically return to the Democrats – unless they believed an upturn in their fortunes could only come from the left side of the aisle? True, this president takes credit for everything and responsibility for nothing.  The Dems usually do.  The Left has long been a parasite, feeding on the host of American prosperity.  Two years into his administration, Obama still blames Bush for our sluggish economy.  Women have grown accustomed to falling for this.  We have always been one of the Left’s pet groups. But if we “feel the pinch of the recession most acutely,” this is exactly the reason we must stop falling – time and time again – for leftist flim-flam.  The very fact that we do care how our families fare, how we’re going to get the bills paid and whether our kids have a future behooves us to stop depending on Santa O and his Democratic elves for our success. Our economic well-being comes not from them, but from the very employers and entrepreneurs they want to punish for being successful.  And we need to begin voting accordingly. How can the GOP make this clearer to women voters? Republicans have good ideas about how to get the economy back on track.  But a special effort must be made to get American women to stop believing in Santa Claus.  In this endeavor, the Left-leaning media will clearly do Republicans no favors. Santa Claus is great fun for the kids, but women are getting a little big for him.

See the original post:
Women Ask: “What’s in Santa’s Bag For Us?”

No responses yet

10 Quotes from “Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom”

Dec 11 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

Recently, I read the 2010 paperback edition of Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom (with a new afterward). Inside author Bruce Bawer slams the forces of political correctness, and with good reason. Yes. We live in a world where puppy posters offend hypersensitive anti-dog Muslims, where beer is associated with evil according to Islam, and where the murder of Koran-unfriendly artists is seen as complex, or at worst, legitimate. But should we submit? Appease? Sacrifice our freedoms? Here are my 10 it-made-me-think quotes from Surrender. 1. On  America’s long battle against Islamofascism (p. 3): America’s very first foreign conflict after the Revolutionary War was with the Barbary pirates, who, sponsored by the Muslim governments of North Africa – just as terrorist groups today enjoy the  sponsorship of countries like Libya, Iran, and Syria – had for generations been preying on European ships and selling their crews and passengers into slavery. 2. On old customs, new methods (p. 4): Today, piracy; tomorrow, terrorism. 3. On how multiculturalism weakens us against radical Islam (p. 21): No aspect of Western democracy is more anathema to the multicultural mentality than free speech. For multiculturalism encourages self-censorship and the condemnation of “insensitive” utterances – especially utterances that are perceived as potentially offensive to some protected group. 4. On enablers in the War on Terrorism (p. 65): And who’s in the driver’s seat? The media. How do the media help the jihadists? The easiest move is simply not to report on jihadist actions at all – or to report on them while concealing their jihadist nature. 5. On rescuing the West (p. 104): If the West is saved from jihad, it will be largely the result of the inhibited nature of free speech on the Internet. 6. On anti-blog critics (p. 104): The standard response of many mainstream journalists to the entire phenomenon of blogging has been to dismiss its practitioners as substandard and unreliable. On the contrary, the best blogs have shown over and over again just how unreliable the mainstream media often is, and how useful an independent corrective can be. 7. On submitting to Islam on campus (p.169): Nowhere in the Western world today is multiculturalism more deeply rooted, dhimmiitude more prevalent, and free speech more imperiled than on university campuses. 8. On free-speech issues on campus (p.170): American institutions of higher education exalt diversity – but not ideological diversity. Many students are intensely aware of their obligations under the speech codes of the institutions they attend but ignorant of their free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. 9. On double-standards (p. 183): It should be noted that a few days after Ahmadinejad was greeted respectfully at Columbia, the anti-Islamist writer David Horowitz was hounded off a stage at Emory University. 10.  On Obama’s response to the jihad-inspired Fort Hood massacre (p.287): For the President of the United States to leaven his public tribute to Hasan’s victim’s with a pathetic effort to exculpate Islam was not only morally despicable: it was chilling in its wholesale denial of the fundamental reality of what had happened at Fort Hood as well as of the guiding ideology of the enemy that confronts the West both at home and abroad. Bawer deserves a medal for bravery, in my view. ___ Ben-Peter Terpstra is an Australian satirist and cartoon lover. His works have been posted on numerous sites from The Daily Caller (Washington D.C.) to Quadrant Online (Sydney, Australia). For more information see, Pizza Trays and Beer Bottles.

Go here to read the rest:
10 Quotes from “Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom”

No responses yet

Crybaby Obama Throws Bombs Left And Right

Dec 08 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

President Obama  flailed about during his press conference yesterday, lashing out at Republicans as “hostage takers” and at his rebellious Leftist base as “sanctimonious purists”.  While throwing around enough rhetorical bombs to blow up Washington metaphorically speaking for his own failings, this crybaby narcissist  did not even take a minute to remember those who perished at the hands of the Japanese bombers on Pearl Harbor Day. Obama must miss the old days when the left-wing media was so in love with him that he could do no wrong. They are now turning on him with a vengeance. In fact, it was just a couple of months ago when White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton spoke to a group of reporters on Air Force One and praised MSNBC’ s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow as “ invaluable .” And if you’re on the left, if you’re somebody like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow or one of the folks who helps to keep our government honest and pushes and prods to make sure that folks are true to progressive values, then he [Obama] thinks that those folks provide an invaluable service. This came after Obama’s interview with Rolling Stone magazine, where he called FOX News “ ultimately destructive .” What are the “invaluable” Olbermann and Maddow saying about Obama now? First, the always temperate Mr. Olbermann: We have enabled this President, and his compromises-spinning-within-compromises. And now there are, finally, those within his own party who have said “enough.” In the Senate, the Independent, Mr. Sanders has threatened to filibuster this deal. He deserves the support of every American in doing so, as does Mr. Conyers and Mr. McDermott and the others in the house. It is not disloyalty to the Democratic party to tell a Democratic president he is wrong; it is not disloyalty to tell him he is goddamned wrong.It is not disloyalty for the 99ers and the 99ers-to-be to rally in the streets of Washington. It is not disloyalty to remind the President that he was elected by people to whom he had given a clear outline of what he would do for them, and if he does not steer out of the skid of what he is doing to them, he will not only not be re-elected, he may not even be re-nominated. It is not disloyalty to remind him that we are not bound to an individual. We are bound to principles. If the individual changes, or fails often and needlessly, then we get a new man. Or woman. None of that is disloyalty. It is self-defense. It is the acknowledgment that, as my hero Thurber wrote, you might as well fall flat on your face as lean over too far backwards. That is what the base is saying to this President, about his Presidency. Ouch! Maddow also went after Obama in mocking terms: What is happening now is that this presidency is at risk of becoming a punch line. It’s not that he has lost a fight or two or three or four. It’s that the very idea that he knows how to win or even wants to win has become a joke. . . . When this president starts to be ignored, when what he wants, his political vision becomes irrelevant. . . . If the president cannot win when his party is the majority in Congress, if no one can even conceive of the president winning fights when his party is in the majority, let alone the minority in Washington, then the presidency itself starts to atrophy. It starts to disappear. Maddow is actually on to something here, in spite of herself. For more than a year, Obama had a filibuster-proof Senate to work with, as well as a large majority in the House of Representatives. He could have gotten his so-called middle-class tax cut extension passed without any worries about those evil Republican “hostage-takers.’ Instead, Obama chose to use his political capital and wind down the clock fighting for his precious Obamacare. Obama has nobody to blame but himself for the hand he is now forced to play because of the changing political landscape. His use of the hostage-taking metaphor, which seems to be the progressive Democratic talking point de jour, is an obscene self-serving lie. Where Maddow, Olbermann,  and the rest of the disillusioned Left go wrong is their obsession with class warfare. They constantly harp on the misleading statistic that the 1 or 2 percent of the richest Americans are getting the lion’s share of the tax cut extension. What they always fail to mention is that it is the top 1 or 2 percent (which, because of mobility, is not always made up of  the same individuals) who pay the lion’s share of income taxes in the first place. Even with the Bush tax cuts, the top 1 percent of taxpayers have paid approximately 40 percent of total federal income taxes, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service . Indeed, the richest 1 percent have paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent. This is the result of our progressive income tax scale. But why should the taxpayers who already contribute 40 percent of the total federal income taxes be penalized yet again for their success? Why shouldn’t they be permited to continue to enjoy an extension of the same tax cuts enjoyed by the many who contribute barely nothing to the running of our bloated government bureaucracy? Remember that these are not new tax cuts. They are simply a temporary extension of tax levels that have been in place for nearly a decade. Though Obama would have been misguided if he had tried to change the rates for the top brackets shortly after he took office, he could have easily done so with the commanding majorities he had in both houses of Congress. Now he is a hostage of his own failures. It is time for him to man up and stop acting like a crybaby. Joseph Klein is the author of a new book entitled Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations and Radical Islam .

Excerpt from:
Crybaby Obama Throws Bombs Left And Right

No responses yet

The Daily Kos Reaction To Obama Cutting A Deal On Taxes

Dec 08 2010 Published by under 2010 Elections

This may shock some of you, but liberals are….unhappy. I know, I know. It’s stunning. How can it be that such cheerful, contented people have been so sour for…what is it now, like 600-700 straight days? Of course, in all fairness, they do have a reason to be upset: Barack Obama has lied to them the same way he has been lying to the rest of America. Here’s the  HuffPo describing why liberals are p.o.’d , Over the past three months, Obama described the Bush-era program that he’s now adopting as his own as “tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires” no fewer than 50 times, according to a review of his stump speeches, weekly addresses, and comments to campaign donors and members of the news media. The rhetoric was deliberate: Obama was trying to cast Republicans as the party of the wealthy while his fellow Democrats represented the middle class. He used that rhetoric at campaign events across the country, from Los Angeles and Las Vegas to Des Moines, Iowa, and Richmond, Virginia. During at least three pre-election rallies, Obama, playing to crowds filled with die-hard supporters, railed against the tax cuts for the wealthy, eliciting rounds of boos from the audience, according to White House transcripts. Obama repeated the “millionaires and billionaires” line once again on Monday in announcing the deal, but with a slight twist: Rather than rejecting Republicans’ call for a full extension of the tax cuts, he simply expressed opposition to their demand of making it permanent. Obama didn’t make that distinction on the campaign trail. But in addition to the class-warfare rhetoric, Obama described the tax cuts as unaffordable and ultimately ineffective. On Sept. 25, during his weekly radio address Obama referred to the initiative as “tax breaks we cannot afford.” A few days later, during an event the White House billed as a “backyard discussion” at the home of a family in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Obama said the nation would “have to borrow the $700 billion” — the estimated cost of the cuts over 10 years — “from China or the Saudis or whoever is buying our debt, and then we’d pass off on average [a] $100,000 check to people who are making a million dollars, up to more than a billion dollars.” Obama wanted to make sure that his audience understood that either the U.S.’s main rival for decades to come would be financing the tax cut, or the nation that sells the U.S. most of its oil. He used the reference to China and Saudi Arabia a few times. And while Republicans and some Democrats have claimed that no one — even the wealthy — should have their taxes raised during a recession because that could stunt the recovery, Obama cast aside those fears, arguing on Sept. 29 that “98 percent of Americans wouldn’t see any benefit from it.” Now, me? I support the deal. You don’t raise taxes in a recession, tax cuts spur economic growth, it’s not the government’s money in the first place, and our budget deficit is out of control because we spend too much, not because we don’t tax enough. All that being said, liberals have every reason to be upset…and they are. Continue reading at Right Wing News .

More:
The Daily Kos Reaction To Obama Cutting A Deal On Taxes

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »