Jamie Raskin's Low Opinion of Women
Thank You, GOD!
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 306: ‘Fear Not' Old Testament – Part 2
The War on Warring
Federal Judge Sentences Abilene Drug Trafficker to Life for Fentanyl Distribution
Jeffries Calls Citizenship Proof ‘Voter Suppression’ as Majority of Americans Back Voter I...
Four Reasons Why the Washington Post Is Dying
Foreign-Born Ohio Lawmaker Pushes 'Sensitive Locations' Bill to Limit ICE Enforcement
TrumpRx Triggers TDS in Elizabeth Warren
Texas Democrat Goes Viral After Pitting Whites Against Minorities
U.S. Secret Service Seized 3 Card Skimmers in Alabama, Stopping $3.1M in Fraud
Jasmine Crockett Finally Added Some Policy to Her Website and It Was a...
No Sanctuary in the Sanctuary
Chromosomes Matter — and Women’s Sports Prove It
The Economy Will Decide Congress — If Republicans Actually Talk About It
OPINION

Obama's On-Again, Off-Again Great Recession

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Mr. President, I have several very important questions. 

My first inquiry pertains to the fact that you want to extend the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000.  Apparently, the dividing line to be considered wealthy is a cool quarter of a million. 

Advertisement

However, is that $250,000 net or $250,000 gross?  Just thought I’d ask. 

In addition, you keep referring to the middle-class, you know, the “folks…digging themselves out of the hole that was created by this great recession.” 

I noticed you called it “this great recession.” 

On the contrary, I thought you had led us out of the recession with all your economic hope and change. 

Maybe “this” doesn’t mean current, maybe it means something else, kind of like what “is” “is.” 

What troubles me is that an income of $250,000 and above is considered wealthy.  Yet, over one-half of Americans don’t pay taxes which must mean they are the low-class or no-class, obviously not the middle-class. 

So, exactly where is the dividing line, top and bottom, for this so-called middle-class? 

Next, I’d like to know when it stops being recognized as the George W. Bush-era tax cuts and just becomes identified as the “current tax brackets.” 

I believe every modern President, from Kennedy to Nixon and from Clinton to Bush, have tried to set tax policy. 

In fact, more than likely, every President since George Washington has also tried to do the same. 

I suppose it would be politically difficult to call it the Kennedy-era tax cuts or the Reagan-era tax cuts.  

Advertisement

In addition, it would not be politically smart to just simply announce that you want to raise taxes on the most productive people of our workforce, small business (gross-net).  On the other hand, since in your mind it’s still Bush’s war, Bush’s credit collapse, and Bush’s unemployment problem, I guess it’s easy enough to keep calling it the Bush-era tax cuts. 

Finally, Mr. President, who is the linguistic coach that inspired you to use the word “folks?” 

As a Harvard educated and well-schooled public speaker, the down home approach may play well for the Beltway, but for the majority it gets a little aggravating after a while.  But, maybe, just maybe, that’s the whole idea. 

Give tax breaks to a class of people that doesn’t exist, blame a President who’s no longer in office, and talk as though you’re a resident of Green Acres. 

That’s an interesting strategy. 

Mitt Romney, please take note. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement