505.) President Obama did an interview with Bill O’Reilly, and during this interview there were several things that should be noted.
during the interview Mr. O’Reilly asked the President, if he denied the claim that he was a man who wanted to redistribute wealth. President Obama replied “absolutely”, Mr. O’Reilly then said “You deny that?” To which President Obama said “Absolutely I did not raise taxes once, I lowered them over the last two years.” President Obama is claiming here that he does not believe in redistribution of wealth. That is really weird, because I remember in 2008 hearing something quite different. If I remember correctly there was a fairly sizable uproar when a plumber by the name of Joe asked the president about this same issue, to which President Obama replied with the statement “I thinking money works best when you spread it around.” If we go even further back into history, there is a radio interview with President Obama where he said that one of the failings of the civil rights movements was that they were unable to bring about redistributive change through the courts. Redistributive change… it pops up yet again. President Obama says that he doesn’t believe in it, and cites not raising taxes as proof. However, there are other parts of his record that contradict this. One of the best examples of redistributive change is when President Obama approved the governments buying of GM. They seized private property, in order to prevent it from going into bankruptcy. They took money from share holders, and bond holders, and gave their ownership in the company to the UAW. Once the Unions had an ownership stake in GM the government let them file for bankruptcy. The reason way President Obama approved the purchase of GM was because if they were to file for bankruptcy they have a chance to change contracts, which would bring the UAW back into control, cut their benefits and return GM to profitability, if the unions had an ownership stake the likely hood of this happening was far reduced. So he took from someone who had property, and gave to someone who didn’t have property. That is redistribution of wealth, that is what the President said he didn’t do.
When he first took office in 2009 he signed a tax increase on tobacco products. That was a while ago he may have just forgotten that. I could give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. More recently President Obama’s health care law does in fact contain tax hikes. For example there is a new tax on tanning beds. There was also a provision that individuals making $200,000 a year and couples making $250,000 a year will now have a .9% increase in Medicare taxes. Also in the bill those individuals making $200,000 a year or couples making $250,000 a year have a brand new Medicare tax of 3.8% on their investments. There is also a new tax on high priced health care plans. The health care law also includes the individual mandate, which depending on who President Obama is talking to can be seen as either a tax hike or as a requirement. If he is talking to his employers the American People, it is not a tax, if he is talking to a judge trying to defend his position and keep his hallmark legislation intact he says it is a tax. In the “tax cut compromise” taxes were actually raised. The Bush Tax Rate, which has been on the books for ten years, the estate tax was down to 0%, under President Obama’s tax plan the estate tax is now 35%. Those are clear increases in taxes.
When the health care bill was brought up President Obama had this to say “here’s what I think a lot of people saw, over the last two years, at a time when people were concerned about the economy and about jobs, what they saw was a lot of arguing in congress, which is what they always see is a lot of arguing in congress. And they don’t like the process and they felt that our focus wasn’t on what they’re focused on, which is how to win the future, how to make sure that jobs are right here in the United States of America. How are we building a competitive society at a time when we’re losing jobs.” That is not what people were upset with. We were upset that President Obama and the rest of his progressive ilk ram rodded this bill that the majority of Americans did not want through congress. We were upset not with the fact that debate was going on, but because it wasn’t a debate about the bill it was a debate about how anyone who opposed the bill was a toothless redneck. We were sick of the arrogance that President Obama and the progressives spewed out over the air waves. We were sick of the lies, like republicans were holding up the process, when the truth was that the democrats didn’t need one republican vote to pass it, they were using conservatives as whipping boys. We were mad about his big government policies. The porkulus supporter thank you bill, the gifting of GM to the Unions, these had ticked us off to begin with, and then they slapped this health care bill on top of that. He tries to make light of it, by saying we were just frustrated that they weren’t doing enough for the economy. We were mad because they were doing too much for the government. He doesn’t take us seriously; we are just the simple minded folk. This is a common tactic of the president, try to change the opponent’s argument to one that he can stand against, and it irritates me.
President Obama was defending his health care law in the interview and once again jumping to his talking points that he reiterated countless times during 2010. “Bill I just want to be clear about this, because if you look at what we’ve done, what we said was, if you have health care you like you can keep it.” Mr. O’Reilly cut him off before he could go much further down that path. President Obama continues to tout this lie that if you have health care you like you can keep it. This is just not true. Under the bill if your insurance doesn’t meet government standards you have to change it.
Mr. O’Reilly said “Yeah, some people see it that way, but other people see it’s a huge government intrusion and you guy just want to take over, basically, decision making for Americans. It’s an ideological argument.” There was the president’s talking point about how we can “keep our doctors”, fallowed up by this “And what I hear you saying, Bill, for example, is that the notion that us saying to people that don’t have health insurance, don’t make me pay for your health insurance, if you get sick, you have a responsibility to make sure that you have got coverage. There’s nothing socialist about that. that’s saying to Americans, we’re going each of us be responsible for our own health care.” I almost was fooled by this statement. See here is right there is nothing socialist about me not wanting to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility. However he proved Mr. O’Reilly’s statement correct, that they do want to take over decision making for Americans. They are telling Americans that they are going to do what the government is deems responsible. That sounds like a big federal government to me.
When asked if President Obama was moving to the center, he said “I’m the same guy. My practical focus, my common-sense focus right now is how to we out-innovate, out-educate, out-building, out-compete the rest of the world? How do we create jobs here in the United States of America? How do we make sure that businesses are thriving? But how do we also — making sure that ordinary Americans can live out the American dream?” So the lessons of 2010 were lost on him, he does not plan on changing from big government progressive we saw 2009-2010.
506.) I have said many times before that President Obama will use the tax code to drive the economy in the way that he thinks makes the most sense. He will use the federal government’s power to tax to create false market forces, and his recent call for tax reform is proof of this claim. President Obama wants to close tax loop holes, which is fine, everyone pay their taxes, if that’s the stance he wants to take, that is fine. The problem is he wants to get rid of tax loop holes for oil companies, but keep them for green energy production. He said “Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years, without adding to our deficit.” Again, level the playing field, but only if they fit within my political agenda. He targets oil company’s tax loopholes, yet they only receive three billion dollars a year in tax breaks, compare that to the $11,000,000,000.00 (11 billion) in tax breaks for green energy. I am not against ending tax loop holes; I don’t think the tax code should be used by the government to manipulate the economy, but that is not what President Obama is doing, he is merely swapping one set of loop holes for another.
507.) President Obama said in his State of The Union Address that he wants to freeze government spending, then he said that while freezing it, he would invest more in the country. He was merely trying to appease the people on the right who are furious at his spending. Proof that he is not serious about cutting government spending and lowering the deficit came this week when he sent Vice President Joe Biden out to announce that President Obama wants $53 billion dollars for high speed rail. He wants us to have a rail system like Europe, Japan, and China. It won’t work in the United States, not how President Obama dreams it. He wants to have the government invest billions into developing them. Now correct me if I am wrong but we have tried government run rail systems before, Amtrak comes to mind. Over the last 10 years Amtrak has lost $13,000,000,000 (13 billion dollars). The high speed rail will cost billions to develop and if it is run anything like Amtrak it will be yet another drag on the deficit. They wanted to put a high speed rail in Ohio that would link the Three C’s, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. When all was said and done the average speed of the high speed trains would have been 45 miles an hour, making it slower than driving in your car. Let us go through the insanity of the system shall we? Lets say you live in Columbus and want to go see a Cleveland Browns game so you drive to the station in Columbus, find a place to park (most likely have to pay for parking), and then would have to buy a ticket to go to Cleveland, wait for the train to show up. Once you got on the train, fought for a decent seat you have to travel from Columbus to Cleveland a 125 mile trip at an average speed of 45 miles an hour. Once you finally got there you had to get a cab, rent a car to get anywhere, it was not cost effective and by this time most people’s blood would have begun to boil. The people did not want it so the new Governor John Kasich shut it down. There is not a market for high speed passenger trains in America. We had (relatively) high speed rail at one point in time, but we traded trains for cars. The car represents personal freedom. You can drive where ever you want, stop when you want get out when you want. A train is the absence of personal freedom, you get on where you are told, get off when you are told, you have to leave when you are told, and you can only go where that individual train goes. That is why trains have never taken off in America. They don’t fit with the American spirit. It is a progressive dream; it cuts down on the freedom the car represents. It makes everyone the same. If the market existed for high speed rail the private American dreamer would have jumped on it by now.