Seeking cooperation in a polarized climate, President Barack Obama called on Congress Tuesday to act quickly on bipartisan measures that would extend tax breaks for small businesses and help startup companies raise money. He said he would sign the legislation “right away.”

Obama plans to include a series of business measures that have been percolating in Congress in his 2013 budget proposal later this month to flesh out a year-old initiative to give entrepreneurs incentives to expand their businesses or start new ones.

Obama made his remarks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House. He noted that for the first time, the head of the Small Business Administration, Karen Mills, was participating as a full member of the Cabinet.

“It is a symbol of how important it is for us to spur entrepreneurship, to help startups, to move aggressively so that we can assure more companies that create the most jobs in our economy are getting a leg up from various programs that we have in our government,” Obama said.

The White House legislative agenda for small businesses includes permanently eliminating tax rates on capital gains for investments in small businesses and a one-year extension on the ability of all businesses to immediately deduct all of the costs of equipment and software purchases.

The Obama administration also is seeking a new 10 percent tax credit for small businesses that add jobs or increase wages in 2012. In addition, the legislation would make it easier for new startup companies to raise money and to go public. It also would expand a government small business investment program from $3 billion to $4 billion.

“The president has made small businesses and particularly startups a key aspect of his economic growth agenda because he understands how much the newest and fastest-growing small businesses drive job growth in our economy,” said Gene Sperling, director of the White House National Economic Council.

Obama said the Department of Homeland Security also is seeking ways to change the visa process to attract foreign-born entrepreneurs and high-skilled immigrants to invest in the United States or start new businesses.

The measures are modest by comparison to Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus or to last year’s jobs bill. But they borrow from past Obama initiatives and from bipartisan legislation that has either already passed in the House or is being proposed in the Senate.

Obama’s package includes proposals offered in the Senate by Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware and Republican Marco Rubio of Florida, and another plan by Republican Jerry Moran of Kansas and Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia.

White House officials would not disclose the total cost of the president’s package, but Sperling said it would be more than covered by proposals to reduce tax expenditures and by closed loopholes the administration will call for in its 2013 budget.

With the presidential election set to become the main political preoccupation of 2012, the White House initiative is designed to take advantage of cooperative attempts by Republicans and Democrats to find modest remedies to spur the economy. Most of those efforts have been overshadowed by congressional bickering, the Republican presidential primary and Obama’s growing attention to his re-election.

The proposals come a year after the administration launched a consolidated effort to spur new startup businesses with a high-profile White House event featuring scores of entrepreneurs, some of whom offered testimonials to the job creation possibilities that new businesses can bring to the economy.

Besides the tax breaks, a central element of the Obama package is to assist new entrepreneurs by making it easier for them to raise money, reducing taxes on their startup expenses and removing securities barriers for new companies that have gone public.

“Our small business agenda has a specific focus on removing the barriers that have for too long blocked startups and entrepreneurs from getting the financing they need to accelerate their growth and hiring,” Sperling said.

One of the Obama provisions would increase the amount of money that can be raised through small public offerings that don’t require companies to undergo an extensive Securities and Exchange Commission registration process. The limit for such “mini public offerings” would increase from $5 million a year to $50 million. The House passed similar legislation last year.

Read original post.

The amount of money the federal government takes out of the U.S. economy in taxes will increase by more than 30 percent between 2012 and 2014, according to the Budget and Economic Outlookpublished today by the CBO.

At the same time, according to CBO, the economy will remain sluggish, partly because of higher taxes.

“In particular, between 2012 and 2014, revenues in CBO’s baseline shoot up by more than 30 percent,” said CBO, “mostly because of the recent or scheduled expirations of tax provisions, such as those that lower income tax rates and limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and the imposition of new taxes, fees, and penalties that are scheduled to go into effect.”

The U.S. economy, CBO projects, will perform “below its potential” for another six years and unemployment will remain above 7 percent for another three.

“The pace of the economic recovery has been slow since the recession ended in June 2009, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) expects that, under current laws governing taxes and spending, the economy will continue to grow at a sluggish pace over the next two years,” said CBO. “That pace of growth partly reflects the dampening effect on economic activity from the higher tax rates and curbs on spending scheduled to occur this year and especially next. Although CBO projects that growth will pick up after 2013, the agency expects that the economy’s output will remain below its potential until 2018 and that the unemployment rate will remain above 7 percent until 2015.”

According to the CBO report, federal tax revenues equaled $2.302 trillion in fiscal 2011, and will increase to $2,523 trillion in fiscal 2012, $2,988 trillion in fiscal in 2013, and $3,313 trillion in 2014.

As a percentage of GDP, according to CBO, federal tax revenues were 15.4 percent in fiscal 2011, and will be 16.3 percent in 2012, 18.8 percent in 2013, and 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014.

In dollar terms, the anticipated increase in federal tax revenue from fiscal 2011 ($2.302 trillion) to fiscal 2014 ($3.313 trillion) is $1.011 trillion. That is an increase of 43.9 percent.

From just 2012 to 2014, the increase in federal tax revenues from $2.523 trillion to $3.313 trillion equals $790 billion—or 31.3 percent.

The anticipated percentage increase in federal tax revenue is not only large when calculated in dollar terms but also when calculated as a share of GDP. The jump from 15.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 20.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2014 equals an increase of 29.8 percent. The jump from 16.3 percent in fiscal 2012 to 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014 equals an increase over two years of 22.7 percent.

Federal tax revenues have averaged “about 18 percent of GDP for the past 40 years,” according to CBO. So, in the next two years federal tax revenues will rise from a level that is below the modern historical average to a level that is above it.

Remember Obama’s two-year salary freeze he imposed on federal workers?  Well, as part of his FY 2013 budget, Obama plans to end the pay freeze and offer salary increases to federal workers.  It is in this context that CBO published a report showing that federal workers still earn more than their counterparts in the private sector.

While it is clear that many federal workers (but not all) work hard for their money, it is also clear that they should not be earning more than those who pay their salaries.  It is simply unsustainable for government workers to be earning more than their counterparts in the private sector.

Yesterday, CBO published a report showing that on average, government workers are paid more than those in the private sector with similar jobs and qualifications.  Here are the pertinent findings of the report:

• Overall, federal civilian employees receive total compensation 16% higher than their private-sector counterparts;
• Federal civilian employees receive 2% more in cash wages than private-sector employees;
• The most significant advantage comes in the form of benefits, where federal civilian employees enjoy a 48% advantage over their private-sector counterparts.  Also, workers with no more than a high school education enjoyed the largest advantage over their private-sector counterparts.  The only workers who fare better in the private sector are those with post-graduate degrees.  Obviously, even with the generous benefits package for government workers, there is a limit to how much one can make.  That inherent limit affects the most educated workers.

This is something lost on those who opposed Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s public sector compensation reforms.  Walker’s major reforms included requiring teachers to contribute 5.8% into their pensions (instead of 0%) and all public employees to pay 12.6% of their health-care premiums.  The average private-sector worker with similar education, qualifications, experience, and salary, would walk over glass for those benefits.  Yet, the union goons blew up Madison for a month because their benefit package wasn’t 100% free.

The same thing holds true on a federal level.  Average benefits were 72% higher for federal employees with no more than a high school education than for their private-sector counterparts.  We are slated to spend over $1 trillion just on civilian federal workers’ pensions over the next 10 years.  It is these unlimited benefits for federal workers that are more costly and unpredictable than higher wages.  CBO notes that they are hard to quantify and predict in the long run.

How in the world can the taxpayers, many of whom receive no pension, support such a scheme?  The federal workforce needs to transition from a defined-benefit retirement system to a defined-contribution system.  The private-sector might serve as a good example for such reforms.

Last week’s State of the Union address was a sad and pathetic affair, full of transparent rhetoric and demagoguery, brimming with incandescent hypocrisies, variegated with an expansive assortment of half-truths and lies, palled by a mediocrity that almost seemed intentional, detached from reality like an unmoored hot-air balloon that slowly ascends to the heavens, stuffed with dense and infuriating arrogance, and draped over our nation like a several-sizes-too-small coat with promises and ideas rendered diminutive in the shadow of the historical moment.

All this was clear last Tuesday night. And yet somehow over the past week, the address actually grew worse.

The president’s speech was less a factual information session about the current American condition than it was a mawkish parade of political images and symbols, meant to make us identify with the president’s vision and feel at safe harbor with his leadership. It was less a speech than a play, lavish with props and masquerading actors tasked with immersing the audience in an alternate version of reality. But over the past week, key scenes of the drama have fallen apart. The president now looks less like a seasoned political actor than like Quince at the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, farcically fumbling his lines.

One of the supporting thespians was the Indiana-based electric car battery-maker Ener1, whose subsidiary EnerDel received a $118.5 million grant under the stimulus bill. EnerDel was also showered with more than $4 million in federal gifts under the Bush Administration. The scrappy little green boutique was meant to symbolize the flowering benefits of the sort of business-government handshaking that the rest of the civilized world calls “crony capitalism.” “In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” Obama declared last Tuesday.

Precisely two days later, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company had been an encore actor in the president’s campaign theatrics. Almost one year ago, Vice President Joe Biden visited the Ener1 facilities, effervescent about the administration’s promise to airlift 1 million electric cars onto the road by 2015. That pledge has since crashed on the shoals of reality and the cardboard prop that is Ener1 has blown over.

Watching Ener1 fold, it’s hard not to recall that last great monument to the progress of the green revolution: Solyndra. President Obama lauded that company in his 2010 State of the Union and it promptly imploded last year. One imagines executives at Pepsi placing urgent phone calls to the White House, encouraging the president to mention Coca-Cola in next year’s address. If you’re employed by a business receiving checks from the Department of Energy, you may want to dash off a few copies of your résumé this afternoon.

But the star of the State of the Union show, the leading lady, was Warren Buffett’s Secretary. “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary,” Obama declared. “Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else — like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans?” So central was Warren Buffett’s Secretary to the performance, she attended as the special guest of the president and belle of the ball, standing in the audience as a quiet testament to the grinding, Dickensian class divide that darkens the backstreets and alleys of modern America.

Warren Buffett’s Secretary was played by Debbie Bosanek, who is Warren Buffett’s actual secretary, and who makes between $200,000 and $500,000 per year, according to the calculations of Paul Roderick Gregory over at Forbes. It was a brilliant dramatic portrayal. While Bosanek herself is a creature of the upper classes, she effortlessly slipped into the part of Warren Buffett’s Secretary, a downtrodden proletarian exploited by the tax code, reminiscent of Peggy Olson in Mad Men.

This, by the way, presents a knotty conundrum for progressives. If Gregory’s deductions are correct, then Bosanek is likely a member of that charter club known as the “wealthiest 2%,” a coven of blackhearted plunderers and blue-blooded aristocrats that looted the country for all it was worth in 2008. Progressives have demanded higher taxes on the wealthiest 2%, yet hailed Bosanek as an overtaxed hero. They’ve blamed the wealthiest 2% for all the nation’s ills, but hoisted up this secretary as an emblem of justice in the class wars. Well, which is it? Should we add her image to theTwo Minutes Hate tape, or no? And should we raise her taxes? Lower them? Maybe we should just raise everyone’s taxes.

The overarching themes pervading the president’s State of the Union drama were America’s greatness and stifling inequality. America was great when it allowed for the president’s accomplishments, like killing Osama bin Laden. But when it came to the president’s failures, most notably three years of a doldrums job market, it was all the fault of that yawning canyon of economic class. Wealthy Americans — for whom Debbie Bosanek’s membership application is still pending — were cast as the villains, cackling all the way to their banks with insufficiently punitive Treasury receipts.

The only solution was to sock it to them, specifically with a 30% net tax on millionaires. This (along with solar batteries) was the Big Idea, the great glowing light bulb of the president’s address. And according to an analysis by the Fiscal Times, it would raise $30 billion in revenue — and that’s assuming that the sledgehammer of adding yet another tax didn’t further stall the economy. Of course, $30 billion isn’t immaterial, but the Tea Party Caucus could cut that much from the federal budget during a bad hangover. Meanwhile, the national debt is $15.2 trillion.

And Democrats have already booby-trapped the tax code for the wealthiest Americans. With current tax rates set to expire at the beginning of 2013, taxes on capital gains will shoot up from 15% to 20%. And thanks to a pernicious little slice of the Obamacare legislation, taxes on capital gains will further increase to almost 24% in 2013. All this will happen unless the federal government takes action to prevent it. It’s piquantly fitting, isn’t it? If the president wants to see tax rates tighten for millionaires, his easiest course is simply to get reelected.

But I regret that I’ve disposed of two paragraphs trying to refute the president’s numbers when the numbers are nugatory here. Obama is fully aware that his tax increase would do little to arrest the deficit and less to catalyze the economy. His purpose is to blacken the wealthy into villains and portray himself as the eminently reasonable hero; to siphon all the laws and details of politics and economics into a simple, dramatic dichotomy and cast himself on the side of good. He is, with total self-awareness, jousting with phantoms and trying to bring the rest of us along for the ride. It may make for a spectacular show, but at the end of the day, that’s all it is: cheap lines and theatrics cluttering the stage floor.

View original article.

Much ink has been poured over the fact that 51% of tax filers paid no federal income taxes in 2009.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2012/01/end-refundable-tax-credits-for-illegals/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2012/01/obamas-low-ball-vision/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2012/01/obamas-low-ball-vision/#comments Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:00:39 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2012/01/obamas-low-ball-vision/ From NRO Articles:

You would think that with one of the weakest economic recoveries on record, President Obama would be desperately searching for ways to promote economic growth. It is, after all, an election year. Most pundit and pollsters agree that it’s the economy stupid.

But instead, Obama used his State of the Union speech to rail on about fairness, inequality, and redistribution. The Obama strategy is simple: Tax the rich because they don’t pay enough.

The problem is, they do pay enough. According to the Tax Foundation, Americans making $1 million or more pay a 25 percent average tax rate. People in the $50,000 to $100,000 income category — call it the middle class — pay 7 to 8 percent.

But no, Obama’s one big idea in his Tuesday-night speech was a 30 percent minimum tax on millionaires. This, by the way, is really a hike in the capital-gains tax. And this Obama penalty is aimed squarely at his likely election opponent, Mitt Romney. Talk about taxing success. Talk about taxing growth.

The capital-gains tax is the single most important economy-wide tax on wealth, risk-taking, and investment. It’s a tax on seed corn. What a brilliant idea, Mr. President.

I remember the late Jack Kemp always saying you can’t have successful capitalism without capital. But that wasn’t in the president’s State of the Union.

It’s not as though the economy is prepared to a take another tax hit. The fourth-quarter GDP report adjusted for inflation came in at a mediocre 2.8 percent. Wall Street promptly sold off on the news.

And we’re now ten quarters into the tepid Obama recovery, with its average quarterly growth rate of 2.4 percent annually.

Deep recessions are supposed to breed strong snap-back recoveries. But it’s not happening — even after an $800 billion government-spending package, a $2 trillion Federal Reserve balance-sheet expansion, a zero Fed interest rate (for three years and counting), and a whole bunch of temporary targeted tax cuts.

It’s the whole Keynesian bag of tricks, but it’s still a very subpar recovery.

Way back when, Ronald Reagan used the supply-side model, and rejected big-government Keynesianism. He permanently lowered marginal tax rates, deregulated the economy, went to a strong King Dollar that collapsed oil and gold prices, and limited domestic spending (as a share of GDP). After ten quarters of recovery, the Reagan growth rate was 6 percent.

Compare that to Obama’s 2.4 percent. Or compare Obama’s 2.4 percent to the 4.6 percent post-WWII average recovery rate after ten quarters. The average is twice as good as Obama. But Obama is only roughly a third of Reagan. That tells you something.

On top of all this, under current-law Obama policy, the vitally important capital-gains tax is going up, even without the millionaire’s minimum. Next year, the capital-gains tax will revert to 20 percent from today’s 15 percent. Then Obamacare will raise investment tax rates by 4 percent, bringing us up to 24 percent. That equals an 11 percent rollback of wealth and growth incentives.

But that’s not all, since the capital-gains tax is paid on top of the 35 percent corporate tax. So under Obama, a 24 percent cap-gains tax is really a 51 percent tax rate on capital.

As Mitt Romney found out, even today’s 15 percent cap-gains tax is really a 45 percent double tax on top of the corporate levy. But there’s a better way here: Slash the corporate tax rate, and leave the cap-gains rate alone until full-fledged tax reform can take place.

In other words, increase incentives to grow and invest. Make it pay more after tax to invest and take risks. That’s a growth prescription, the exact opposite of Obama’s redistributionism.

Why is it fair or equal to create a lower tide that pulls down all boats?

I interviewed Mitt Romney on CNBC this week, and it’s clear that he gets this. And as he aggressively argued in the Jacksonville, Fla., debate, he is proud of his success and doesn’t want to give it back to the tax man.

More important, Team Romney is cooking up a stronger tax-reform plan. Romney intends to broaden the base by getting rid of deductions, exemptions, and loopholes, and then bring down the rates. I asked him if the plan would be ready during the primary season. He said yes.

There is a growing consensus around the country for full-fledged reform of the personal and corporate tax codes. People yearn for simplicity, competitiveness, and new incentives. Obama’s great mistake in the State of the Union was his low-ball vision of class warfare and redistribution when the country wants growth measures.

This November we’ll see a great debate between a big-government entitlement society that emphasizes fairness and a smaller-government growth society based on free-market capitalism. Pro-growth tax reform is essential to this debate.

View source page.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2012/01/obamas-low-ball-vision/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/g-20-summit-obama-should-declare-the-welfare-state-bankrupt/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/g-20-summit-obama-should-declare-the-welfare-state-bankrupt/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 22:31:09 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/g-20-summit-obama-should-declare-the-welfare-state-bankrupt/ From The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation:

Air Force One winged its way to another exotic destination last night. When President Obama arrives at the posh seaside resort in Cannes, France, for the latest meeting of the G-20 today, he should ignore all the fluff put forth by French President and G-20 host Nicolas Sarkozy—a prescription of higher taxes, expanded regulation, and more statism (especially for developing countries) will not solve the EU debt crisis. As Heritage’s Nile Gardiner writes in an op-ed, and as many others have…



Click the title to read the full post.

Read original post.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/g-20-summit-obama-should-declare-the-welfare-state-bankrupt/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/cained-to-the-ground/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/cained-to-the-ground/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:09:00 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/cained-to-the-ground/ From The American Spectator and The Spectacle Blog:

Liberals had a dim view of Herman Cain’s character long
before this week. They automatically ascribed bad motives to him
and to his GOP supporters. His political views couldn’t possibly be
sincere, they pronounced. He is clearly pandering to racists.
Democratic strategist Karen Finney summed this attitude up by
saying: “One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he
makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like
they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he is
giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because
they think he’s a black man who knows his place.”

This is a rich charge, given that putting black
conservatives in their place is one of the chief preoccupations of
liberals. Holding black conservatives to a higher standard than
others in public life is a form of discrimination liberals have
perfected. They consider it very enlightened to ridicule black
conservatives, call them vicious names, even wish for their speedy
death. “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he
dies early like many black men do of heart disease,” pundit
Julianne Malveaux said about Clarence Thomas in the 1990s. “He is
an absolutely reprehensible person.” Liberals didn’t expel Malveaux
from polite society for this comment that might have even given
David Duke pause. Instead, they feted her in academia. These days
she is a college president at Bennett.

Regulating the blackness of black conservatives is the
divine right of liberals. And so almost anything Cain says or does
is fair game. A white liberal like MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell
feels so empowered by this divine right that he can question the
quality of Cain’s participation in the Civil Rights movement. Why,
he badgered Cain a few weeks back, didn’t you do more to promote
Civil Rights?

The exceedingly smug O’Donnell, however, couldn’t quite
bring himself to demean Cain as “minstrelsy” and musical.
For that task, he needed a black liberal and found one this week in
the single-name fraud Touré, a peddler of quasi-intellectual mumbo
jumbo and cheap shots that he regards as cutting-edge cultural
criticism. Using the pretentious patter of a Henry Louis
Gates, Touré unburdened himself of the deep

insight that “I think that Cain, interestingly, does not exist
without Obama preceding him.” Mortified by having to live under a
smart black man like Obama, conservatives needed to “right the
scales” with the elevation of a “lightweight” like Cain, said
Touré.

Unable to contain his brilliance, Touré continued that
there “is this constant minstrelsy aspect that he keeps bringing
up. This is not something that we’re just making up out of whole
cloth. He is the one who says he wants the Secret Service to call
him Corn Bread. He is the one who says things like ‘oh, shucky
ducky’ when he starts. This is deep black slang that he is using,
that we have not seen on a national public stage before.” This
sounds like a potential doctoral dissertation for Touré under Henry
Gates — the troubling implications of “shucky ducky” in American
politics.

Cain isn’t the first black man to run for the GOP
nomination, though one might think so listening to this nonsense.
In 2000, the Plato-quoting Alan Keyes ran for the GOP nomination.
Where does he fit into Touré’s analysis? Toure didn’t mention him
in his list of “serious intellectuals” who have run for president
even as he numbered Colin Powell, who didn’t run for president, as
one of them: “…Colin Powell, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama, the
blacks who are running for president have presented themselves as
serious intellectuals…” Notice, by the way, that
he includes Jesse Jackson on the list. Apparently Cain
lacks the dignity, thoughtfulness, and moral probity of that former
aspirant.

Black conservatives just can’t win. Whether they are
“entertainers” like Cain or philosophers like Keyes, they are
marked down as “wacky,” as Maureen Dowd
described the two this week.

The left’s excitement over the sex harassment charges
dogging Cain can’t be explained by moral philosophy, unless
liberals plan to recant eight years of Clintonian apologetics. The
same people who still whine about the “prurient” Ken Starr are now
clamoring for the release of confidential files from twelve years
back. The less actual sex involved in a scandal, the more
interested liberals become in it, particularly if it taints a
conservative and even better if it taints a black one. Clinton’s
cavortings, fumblings, and passes in the Oval Office itself didn’t
interest them. Those were a “private matter.” But the Cain charges
have the potential to be disqualifying, they say.

Even if one were to put the worst possible construction on
the charges, they would constitute a relatively moral day for
Clinton. Nevertheless, Clinton’s boosters eagerly await the
appearance of Cain’s accusers. They want their Anita Hill. They say
that Cain is besmirching the good names of these women even though
the public doesn’t know their names yet. The press is working hard
to correct this injustice so that the names can be known and
properly besmirched.

Perhaps Cain is lying and he did speak improperly to these
women, though that would still fall well short of the Clinton
standard. Remember, “competence” alone qualifies one for the
presidency; crummy character doesn’t matter. Also, Clinton taught
the nation that “lying ” about sex and alleged sexual harassment
(Paula Jones) is no big deal. The press knew Clinton sexually
harassed his way through Arkansas and didn’t care. A few female
reporters, so grateful to him for protecting their right to
abortion, indicated they wished to be harassed too.

Cain enjoys no such ideological immunity. He is an odious
black conservative who threatens the left’s monopolistic hold on
blacks. Also, he is some kind of pro-lifer, which means he is
anti-woman from the start. Political figures are to be judged by
the content of their ideology, decrees the left. The seriousness of
a charge is determined by the rightness of a public figure’s
political views. A Ted Kennedy was entitled to a mulligan or two
after an unwelcome advance since he had done so much to help women
already.

Not so with Cain. The left can’t rest until black
conservatives are put in their place.

View original post.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/cained-to-the-ground/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/who-are-these-fat-cat-few-at-the-top/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/who-are-these-fat-cat-few-at-the-top/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 11:00:01 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/who-are-these-fat-cat-few-at-the-top/ From NRO Articles:

First lady Michelle Obama the other day railed at “the few at the top,” who do all sorts of bad things. A few months ago, we began hearing of the “1 percent” who are responsible for the current economic mess. “They” apparently make all their money at the expense of the other 99 percent. Are they the same as last year’s villains, who had not paid “their fair share” while making over $200,000 in annual income?

Do they include the greedy doctors, who, the president once asserted, recklessly lop off limbs and yank tonsils for profits? Is my urologist a dreaded one-percenter? He found out what was causing my kidney stones but probably makes good money. Was a nearby farmer one, too? I bet he makes over $200,000 but, like many other growers in this area, has found a way to produce beef and cotton more cheaply and efficiently than farmers in almost any other part of the world, thereby enriching his county, state, and nation.

View original post.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/who-are-these-fat-cat-few-at-the-top/feed/ 0 http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/obamas-class-warfare-its-all-hes-got-left/ http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/obamas-class-warfare-its-all-hes-got-left/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 02:37:26 +0000 Admin http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/obamas-class-warfare-its-all-hes-got-left/ From RenewAmerica:

(David Limbaugh) – There he goes again. President Obama, on the campaign stump, rails against the “rich,” saying our “wealth gap” shows a need for a “fairer approach.” Does he really believe our economic problems have been caused by insufficient taxes on the rich?…

View source page.

]]> http://www.antiobamablog.com/2011/11/obamas-class-warfare-its-all-hes-got-left/feed/ 0