How high should tax rates go?



Obama: ‘I don’t have a particular number in mind’

Here is President Obama in a chat yesterday with CNBC’s Steve Liesman:

STEVE LIESMAN: Mr. President, I just want to pivot back one more time to domestic issues.  You’ve said a bunch of times that getting the wealthy to pay a little bit more, and you’ve succeeded in raising that top tax rate to 39% or rolling back the tax cuts. Is there a limit there?  Is there a limit to how much you believe the government should take from an individual in terms of a top tax rate?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I don’t have a particular number in mind, but if you look at our history we are still well below what, you know, the marginal tax rates were under Dwight Eisenhower or, you know, all the way up even through Ronald Reagan.  Tax rates are still lower on average for most folks.  And what that means is that we probably can make some more headway in closing loopholes that folks take advantage of. As opposed to necessarily raising marginal rates.

Obama’s response raises an interesting question: How high does he think tax rates could go without really damaging the economy? As my pal Liesman asked, what is the limit?

The president’s answer certainly suggests, at least to me, that he believes the US is nowhere close to the danger zone. If so, he is merely in sync with top left-leaning economists —  such as Peter DiamondThomas PikettyEmmanuel Saez —  who argue for top rates in the 70% to 80% range, if not higher. Oh, and at the same time the high-tax crowd would close tax loopholes and increase tax enforcement to limit avoidance.

Interestingly, Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope that the real problem with the 70% tax rate that existed when Ronald Reagan was president was not that it “curbed incentives to work or invest” but that it led “to a wasteful industry of setting up tax shelters.” So maybe Obama thinks a 70% rate with little to avoid it would be just fine. Also keep in mind Obama’sblasé attitude about the US tax burden when Democrats fail to specify how the US will avoid a debt catastrophe in coming decades.

And  here are some links to posts on why the US shouldn’t return to the day of confiscatory taxation:

Why we can’t go back to sky-high, 1950s tax rates

New study shows why heavily taxing the rich won’t work

Obama’s economic plan? Back to the ’70s!

Do liberals really think an 80% top tax rate wouldn’t hurt the US economy?

From AEI Ideas.


“This Does Not Come From The Federal Government,”

“That’s the biggest distinction here. This is the governor taking unilateral action. Not having that oversight and supervision and direction as part of a plan from the federal authorities, I think it is reckless and could lead to significant safety issues.” Jayson P. Ahern, former Customs and Border Protection commissioner, retired after 33 years working for the feds – criticizing Rick Perry’s deployment of Texas NationalGuard troops to the border.

The same feds who cannot will not enforce our immigration laws, “leading” us into this crisis. Yeah right. We need their expertise.







“People are anxious…. the old order isn’t holding”

During a fundraiser in Seattle this week, President Barack Obama called for a “new order” based around a collectivized system in order to quell people’s concerns about geopoliticalstrife and the economy.

“People are anxious. Now, some of that has to do with some big challenges overseas,” said Obama, adding, “But whether people see what’s happening in Ukraine, and Russia’s aggression towards its neighbors in the manner in which it’s financing and arming separatists; to what’s happened in Syria … to the failure in Iraq for Sunni and Shia and Kurd to compromise … to what’s happening in Israel and Gaza….”

“Part of people’s concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn’t holding and we’re not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that’s based on a different set of principles, that’s based on a sense of common humanity, that’s based on economies that work for all people. … But here in the United States, what people are also concerned about is the fact that although the economy has done well in the aggregate, for the average person it feels as if incomes, wages just haven’t gone up; that people, no matter how hard they work, they feel stuck.”

In a geopolitical context, Obama’s call for a “new order” really doesn’t sound any different from the old unipolar world order that the United States has represented since the end of the Cold War, which is now being challenged by the rise of the BRICS countries.

Developments over the course of the past year have made it clear that the United States no longer considers Russia to be part of this “new order” as a result of its resistance to NATO encirclement.

In terms of the economy, Obama’s insistence on “economies that work for all people” based on “common humanity” is in direct contradiction to his actual policies, which have almost exclusively served to help Wall Street fat cats while the average American sees their household income decline year after year when adjusted for inflation.

This is by no means the first time that Obama has called for a new world order.

During a 2010 West Point speech, the President encouraged the development of a new “international order” to help secure America’s interests.

Obama also urged Europeans and Americans to embrace the idea of “global citizenship” during a 2012 Berlin speech.

Vice-President Joe Biden has also repeatedly called for a “new world order.”

From HERE.




There are miles and miles of Islamic territory that Palestine could be so happy in with other muslims, who kill even each other for not being the right kinds of muslims. but nooooooo they wanna shove Israel out of the very small territory that the Israelies occupy. Hear more in this ZoNation -




Michelle Obama complains there’s too much money in politics, then asks donors for a big, fat…

Border Patrol: Illegal Surge Is Mostly Families, Not Unaccompanied Kids

Obama: Stop Me Before I Invade Iraq!




How Napoleon Dealt w/Muslim Atrocities in Gaza and Israel

The debates over the laws of war when fighting enemies who don’t respect those wars have been going on for a long time. Napoleon faced some of those same issues in Gaza and the rest of Israel.

Food and drink were scarce as they continued the march across the Sinai desert toward El Arish. They were reduced to eating dogs, monkeys and camels. The only water that they had was brackish. According to Kobler, Napoleon had the Bible read in his tent, In Bonaparte’s Campagnes d’Egypte et de Syrie, he noted that “…some of the older soldiers were chanting psalms and Jeremiah¹s Lamentations.”…

Napoleon arrived in Khan Yunis, the first city in the Gaza strip..

As the united French army approached Khan Yunis, the Mamelukes fell back on Gaza. Napoleon sighted enemy cavalry in front of Gaza. He formed his divisions into three squares and advanced with fixed bayonets. The Mameluke army faded away. The French seized a large quantity of arms, food and supplies. Two days later Napoleon resumed his march northward toward Jaffa.

In Yaffa, things got ugly when the city was finally taken.

Amongst the garrison of Jaffa, a number of Turkish troops were discovered, whom I had taken a short time before at El Arish, and sent to Bagdat [sic] upon their parole not to serve again, or to be found in arms against me for a year.

Moreover before I attacked the town, I sent there a flag of truce. Immediately afterwards we saw the head of the bearer elevated on a pole over the walls. Now if I had spared them again, and sent them away on their parole, they would directly have gone to St. Jean d’Acre, where they would have played over again the same scene that they have done at Jaffa.

In justice to the lives of my soldiers… I could not allow this. To leave as a guard a portion of my army, already small and reduced in number, in consequence of the breach of faith of these wretches; it was impossible. Indeed, to have acted otherwise than as I did, would probably have caused the destruction of my whole army. I therefore, availing myself of the rights of war, which authorize the putting to death prisoners taken under such circumstances

The fighters Napoleon was discussing, had among things, been using a mosque was their base.

There was some debate over whether Napoleon had done the right thing, but the enemy had violated the laws of war by murdering a truce bearer and returning to combat after surrendering.

He had few options except to execute their soldiers…

The fighting went on…

Napoleon was informed by Christians in Damascus that a large body of Mameluke and Janissaries was about to cross the Jordan. His outposts at Safed and Nazareth confirmed the passage of two columns of Arabs heading for Tabor and Jenin. Bonaparte dispatched General Junot with 300 infantrymen and 160 cavalry to reconnoiter the mountains around Nazareth. As Junot turned Mt. Loubi “…he found himself surrounded by 4,000 horsemen…”

He fought bravely and with well trained coolness. His small detachment more than decimated the enemy who left 500-600 dead on the field. The French lost 60. Carrying the five stands of colors that he captured, Junot continued on to Nazareth, the city that had seen the birth of Christianity…

According to Kobler 30,000 Turks attacked the French. Napoleon accepted their attack and destroyed them with 4,500 men.

“We never saw such a number of cavalry, wheeling, charging and maneuvering in every direction. We did not make our appearance at all, our cavalry carried the camp of the enemy, which was distant two leagues from the field of battle. We took upwards of 400 camels and all the baggage…” Napoleon described.

The rest of the war had to be aborted, but Napoleon had demonstrated that the Turks were outdated in doctrine, that the Arab Muslims would not stand and fight, but engage in raids and fade away, and that the Muslim enemy was increasingly incapable of fighting modern European armies without European aid… in this case British.

Those elements would play a major role in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Found HERE.




Krauthammer: Obama “Talked About How Disrespectful We Were To Muslims… Where Is He Standing Up For The Christian Minorities”

Not one for mincing words, Charles Krauthammer blasted Barack Obama for spokesperson Marie Harf’s comments regarding the tyranny and terror being perpetrated by the Islamic State in Iraq.

In a statement by Harf, she said:

We condemn in the strongest term the systematic persecution of ethnic and religious minorities by ISIL. These are abominable acts. We are very clear that they only further demonstrate ISIS mission to divide and destroy Iraq. And they have absolutely no place in the future of Iraq.


During a panel discussion on Special Report, Krauthammer pointed out how Christians are being persecuted all over the Middle East. This is something that has followed our involvement in many of these countries by the Obama administration funding and providing weapons to terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, of which he has been labeled a member and his foundation has been tied to terrorist groups. Furthermore, his brother Malik has been a chief financier, and was given tax exempt status by none other than former IRS head Lois Lerner.

“Christians have been under pressure in Lebanon,” he said. “Their population is way down. In Egypt, the Copts have been attacked for years now. This is now the worst instance of this.”

He went on to elborate about the cause of such things. “But this reveals the essence of jihadism. Isolationists here in the U.S., starting with, say, Ron Paul among others, would say, well, 9/11 was a result of stuff we did to offend, to oppress, whatever Muslims, at least in part. It was a retaliation. Now you look at what ISIS is doing. What was the crime of the Christians against ISIS? None. This is the purest ethnic cleansing. This is the pure essence of the intolerance and the barbarism of this kind of Islamic radicalism.”

Read it all HERE.


John Kerry porn….