Obama’s Not Through Raising Taxes: ‘No Doubt We Need Additional Revenue’

Comments Off on Obama’s Not Through Raising Taxes: ‘No Doubt We Need Additional Revenue’

That’s the problem with this kind of mindset these progressives/liberals have…..whether it’s Taxes, gun control or a number of other things, it’s never enough. You compromise with them on taxes and raise it on the wealthy, now they need additional taxes. Same thing with gun control, if you banned ‘assault weapons’ and semi autos, later it would be like they are doing in Australia now, ban bolt action guns. They are never satisfied, you just have to draw a line in the sand and not budge from that line.

President Obama has said all along he isn’t done raising taxes on wealthy Americans, and he said it again in an interview that aired on CBS during the Super Bowl.

A month after signing a bill that raised tax rates on families making $450,000 or more (and individuals making $400,000-plus), the president said he now wants to close “loopholes.”

‘I don’t think the issue right now is raising rates,” Obama said. The goal now is to find “smart spending cuts,” “reduce health care costs,” and “close loopholes and deductions.”

Obama’s Not Through Raising Taxes: ‘No Doubt We Need Additional Revenue’

February 4, 2013
obamaPresident Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden discuss passage of the tax-hike/fiscal cliff bill in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama has said all along he isn’t done raising taxes on wealthy Americans, and he said it again in an interview that aired on CBS during the Super Bowl.

A month after signing a bill that raised tax rates on families making $450,000 or more (and individuals making $400,000-plus), the president said he now wants to close “loopholes.”

‘I don’t think the issue right now is raising rates,” Obama said. The goal now is to find “smart spending cuts,” “reduce health care costs,” and “close loopholes and deductions.”

Embed »

“If you combine those things together, then we can not only reduce our deficit, but we can continue to invest in things like education and reserach and development
that are going to help us grow,” Obama told CBS’s Scott Pelley.

“There is no dobut we need additional revenue coupled with smart spending reductions in order to bring down our deficit. And we can do it in a gradual way so that it doesn’t have a huge impact,” he added.

Obama twice drew distinctions between “average Americans” and rich people who “take advantage” of perfectly legal tax rules.

The president said he wants to close loopholes for “folks who are well connected and have a lot of accountants and lawyers…so they end up paying lower rates than, you know, a bus driver or a cop.”

A short time later, Obama again set the “average person” against those who are “able to take advantage.”

“When you look at some of these deductions that certain folks are able to take advantage of, the average person can’t take advantage of. The average person doesn’t have access to Cayman Island accounts, the average person doesn’t have access to carried interest income, where they end up paying a much lower rate on billions of dollars that they earned. So we just want to make sure that the whole system is fair, that it’s transparent, that we’re reducing our deficit in a way that doesn’t hamper growth….”

In closing “loopholes” and raising revenue, Obama has the support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Reid told ABC’s “This Week” that any deal to avoid the sequester (deep, automatic spending cuts to defense and non-defense budgets) “without question” would have to include new revenue (more taxes).

Host George Stephanopoulos pressed Reid on that point: “So your position on lifting the sequester, on avoiding a government shutdown, on extending the debt limit beyond August is any one of those deals must include new revenues?”

“Yes,” Reid replied. “The answer is definitely yes. And I’ve got a pretty good fan base for that, the American people: Republicans, Democrats and independents.”

CNS News

Advertisements

Obama: Boy Scouts Should Expose Homosexuals to Opportunities

Comments Off on Obama: Boy Scouts Should Expose Homosexuals to Opportunities

Why would you want to do this to these little boys….insanity on steriods !

One day after President Obama said “yes,” he thinks the Boy Scouts of America should admit homosexuals — to expose them to “opportunities and leadership” — dozens of conservative groups are running a newspaper ad, urging the Boy Scouts to “show courage” and “stand for timeless values.”

The 41 conservative organizations, in a full-page ad in Monday’s USA Today, said it would be a “grave mistake” for BSA to change their longstanding policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders or Scouts.

In a Sunday interview with “60 Minutes” Correspondent Scott Pelley, President Obama said the scouts should admit homosexuals:

“My attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life, and the Scouts are a great institution that are promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred from that.”

The ad running in USA Today says: “Every Scout takes an oath to keep himself ‘morally straight,'” adding that the Boy Scouts “have every right to include sexual conduct in how they define that term.”

It says every American who believes in freedom of thought and religious liberty should be concerned about liberal attacks on the Boy Scouts’ core convictions about morality.

“To compromise moral principles under political and financial pressure would teach boys cowardice, not courage.”

And aside from moral considerations, the policy is part of the BSA’s efforts to protect Scouts from sexual abuse, the conservatives said.

The ad urges Americans to call the Boy Scouts and tell them not to change their membership standards, something the BSA national board will consider doing this week.

The groups sponsoring the ad in USA Today include the the Media Research Center, which is the parent organization of CNSNews.com.

CNS News

‘Father of the Prius’ Declares Electric Cars ‘Not Viable

Comments Off on ‘Father of the Prius’ Declares Electric Cars ‘Not Viable

Hybrid car pioneer and “father of the Prius” Takeshi Uchiyamada says the billions poured into developing battery electric vehicles have ultimately been in vain. “Because of its shortcomings–driving range, cost and recharging time–the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars,” said Uchiyamada. “We need something entirely new.”

Uchiyamada’s comments come as the U.S. Department of Energy announced Thursday that the government is backing off President Barack Obama’s promise to put one million electric cars on American roads by 2015. As Breitbart News reported last September, there are just 30,000 electric cars on American roads.

 

“Whether we meet that goal in 2015 or 2016, that’s less important than that we’re on the right path to get many millions of these vehicles on the road,” said an Energy Department official.

 

President Obama made promotion of electric vehicles a key component of his green initiative. Last September, the Congressional Budget Office reported that federal policies to prop up and promote electric cars will cost taxpayers $7.5 billion through 2019.

 

Several of the electric car companies Obama has funneled taxpayer funds to have floundered. U.S. electric battery maker A123 Systems, which received a $249 million taxpayer-funded government loan, announced last year its decision to sell a controlling stake to Wanxiang, a Chinese company, for $450 millionSimilarly, lithium-ion battery manufacturer Ener1, Inc., which received a $118.5 million taxpayer-funded grant, filed for bankruptcy. And another company, Aptera Motors, has already folded.

 

“The electric car, after more than 100 years of development and several brief revivals, still is not ready for prime time–and may never be,” concludes Reuters.

Breitbart

Chris Wallace Uses Misleading Statistics on Gun Background Checks

Comments Off on Chris Wallace Uses Misleading Statistics on Gun Background Checks

I also don’t understand why LaPierre can’t correct the record on some of the claims being made.  The claim that “1.7 million prohibited people have been prevented from buying a gun” what they really mean is that “1.7 million people have been initially denied buying a gun.”  Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the “no fly” list? This method of counting would be the equivalent of saying that the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists. Sen. Kennedy may have been kept off those flights, but he still flew on later planes.

The problem is that at least 95% of these initial denials are false positives,(i.e. someone having the same name) and that is just the tip of the iceberg.  After these initial denials are made, there is an initial review process in which 94% of the cases are dropped.  No discretion is allowed in this review stage.  If the person purchasing a gun was a prohibited individual who attempted to buy a gun, that is a crime and the investigation should be moved on to the next stage.  There was a 2004 survey of the cases that were then referred to local BATF field offices and that found that over 22 percent of those cases were still false positives.  There could be other cases, but at that point the annual reports become extremely murky.  We know for example in 2010 that there were 76,000 initial denials, 62 of those were eventually referred to prosecutors, prosecutors went ahead with 44 cases, and there were 13 convictions.  Yet, these numbers are an obvious overestimate as they say they might drop cases where the prohibited offense is “old,” but strangely some of the cases that they go forward with have involved cases with prohibitions that are over 4 decades old.

Sandy Hook Student’s Father: You’ll Have To Take My Gun From My Cold Dead Hands!

Comments Off on Sandy Hook Student’s Father: You’ll Have To Take My Gun From My Cold Dead Hands!

A father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School student testified on January 28, 2013 in a Working Group Public Hearing at the Connecticut State Capitol on gun violence prevention. While Bill Stevens’ fifth grade daughter was not harmed in the incident, she was one of the children that were in “lock down” during the shooting and following it. However, Mr. Stevens said that his daughter’s friend’s little sister was one of the children that was murdered because, “when 911 and ‘lock down’ were not enough to protect her from an evil person, not protect her from an ‘assault rifle’ or some type of an inanimate object, but from an evil person.”

Read more

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: Sheriffs Can’t Defy Executive Orders

Comments Off on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: Sheriffs Can’t Defy Executive Orders

I couldn’t believe this when I saw this article……..how stupid of Wolf Blitzer to say such a thing. A executive order IS NOT LAW and citizens, plus especially your elected Sheriff can defy them. According to the Constitution, ONLY Congress makes law.  Wolf Blizter, showing his ignorance of the Constitution and law.

Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county.  The Supreme Court held in Printz v. U.S. in 1997 that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from ever ordering any state or local official to carry out a federal program.  Ironically, that case also involved a sheriff—Jay Printz of Montana—and a federal gun control law.

Discussing gun control, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Friday told Utah SHERIFF JIM TRACY that if Barack Obama issues an executive order, that order is the law and the sheriff must obey. However, jurisprudence on this topic reveals exactly the opposite.

As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, a president can issue executive orders only to employees of the federal government—and only regarding implementing federal laws or programs. A governor can likewise issue executive orders to employees of his state government regarding the laws or programs of that state.

Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county. The Supreme Court held in Printz v. U.S. in 1997 that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from ever ordering any state or local official to carry out a federal program. Ironically, that case also involved a sheriff—Jay Printz of Montana—and a federal gun control law.

Breitbart

Programmer Under Oath Admits Computers Rig Elections

Comments Off on Programmer Under Oath Admits Computers Rig Elections

Was the presidential election rigged by computer programmers? This under-oath expert testifies to just that. Be sure and watch to the end.