TAX CUT OR TAX INCREASE? AHH, THAT IS THE QUESTION!

Did you see Glenn Beck yesterday? He had a video of Austin Goolsbee, Obama's new Chairman of his Council of Economic Advisers, trying to explain why a tax cut for the "wealthy" was a bad thing and would cost the U.S. mucho bucks. He was talking about the wisdom of extending the "Bush Tax Cuts" to all Americans. But I think Mr. Goolsbee, though he's supposed to be an economist, doesn't know squat about taxes.

This is the thing, Mr. Goolsbee. When you take more money than you currently are taking, that's a TAX INCREASE. When you are not paying $100,000 in taxes one year but you will pay it the next year, that's a TAX INCREASE. THIS IS NOT A TAX CUT.

If the Bush Tax Cuts that have been in place for the last decade are preserved for all Americans, the government tax collection stays the same.

Goolsbee says the government will have to borrow $700 billion to cover the "tax cuts for the wealthy." But this is not a TAX CUT. It is a TAX INCREASE. So why would the government have to borrow $700 billion to cover money that they are not currently getting? How can it cost anything when the money isn't currently coming in? That's like hoping you get a $500 per month raise at work and then one morning telling your boss that if you don't give me a $500 per month raise, it's going to cost me so much money I'm going to have to borrow $500 every month to cover the raise I didn't get. The point? Why would you have to borrow $500 per month to replace money you were not getting in the first place? This is precisely what Obama wants to do.

Republicans want the Bush Tax Cuts extended to ALL Americans. Under the GOP plan you earn, the government does not take more of your money, so you keep the money you earn. The amount taken by Uncle Sam remains as it has been for 10 years.

Under the Obama plan, you earn, the government takes more of what you earn and spends it on someone else, like the unions, or whatever people or group Obama likes at the time, and you have less for your own needs.

Well, I have a message for Obama. THIS ISN'T YOUR MONEY TO TAKE AND GIVE AWAY TO SOMEONE ELSE! Our hard earned money is not YOURS. And quit saying you are giving people tax cuts. This is not a tax cut. It is a TAX INCREASE. A tax cut is giving people more money. A tax cut is when the taker does NOT take more of our money. This is an important distinction. Extending the Bush Tax Cuts costs the government absolutely nothing extra.

Obama, the rich are not the enemy. They are the employers, the job creators, the philanthropists, the primer of our economy. Right now they are scared to do anything because your policies are creating uncertainty on every front.

Americans need to know that this is a government game. We are being played for fools. This is class warfare, and it is a big, fat lie. Obama's top economic advisor tries to tell you your money is theirs, you have no right to it. But it is yours. You should be able to choose when to share your money and whom to share it with.

Tell the government that No, We Will Give No More. Keep all Bush Tax Cuts in place forever. Tell them to balance the budget and QUIT SPENDING instead of playing the Money Grab Game.

IRAQ SURPLUSES SWELL AS U.S. DEBT SOARS

It's 2003 and the U.S. invades Iraq and ousts Saddam Hussein. A heinous madman has been deposed, and Iraqis have a chance at freedom. Thanks to the U.S. and our military.

So what has this war cost us? Well, Folks, these are the facts.

Since 2003 the U.S. has infused more than half a trillion dollars into Iraq.

From 2004-2009 Iraq amassed a surplus of $52.1 billion, with over 92% of its revenues coming from oil exports, some of which WE import and pay Iraq for. During that same period overall U.S. debt soared as we ran huge deficits in every one of those years.

The U.S. has spent $624 billion in Iraq helping the Iraqis set up a democratic government. Sounds humanitarian, doesn't it? And wouldn't you think that since Iraq has a huge budget surplus they'd be PAYING us for our help? Or at least providing us with oil free of charge?

But not so. On July 29 the U. S. Congress approved an additional $1 billion in "emergency" aid to the Iraqi government, and Obama is seeking yet another $2 billion in his fiscal 2011 budget, as reported by CNS News.

Our Government Accountability Office (GAO) has disclosed that the Iraqi government holds as much as $32.2 billion in cash on deposit at banks and financial institutions. The GAO stated in its audit report that "Congress should consider Iraq's available financial resources when it reviews the administration's fiscal 2011 budget request and future budget requests for additional funds to train and equip Iraqi security forces."

That sure makes sense, doesn't it? They have the money so why can't they COVER OUR COSTS or even PAY US TO BE THERE? Or send us home? Instead we are supporting billionaires while we are going bankrupt.

According to the CBO, the U. S. budget deficit exceeded $1.3 trillion for fiscal 2010, the second greatest deficit as a percent of GDP since WWII. The greatest deficit ever? 2009's $1.4 trillion.

Whether you believe we should have gone to Iraq or not, Obama's election promise was to end the war in Iraq and stop the bleeding of our resources. So far all he's done is ask for MORE money, and he's changed the verbiage of our mission there, going from "military mission" to "non-combat mission." But ask troops who are still there if their "mission" has changed.

Obama must think Americans are thick minded. That's a mistake he will regret in November.

And just so you know, I gripped at Bush about this situation also. Bush did the same thing, continued to spend money in Iraq while they gathered up a huge surplus. Both administrations are at fault. But Obama SAID he'd end it, and he hasn't. Bush never promised to end it.