Obama Says Wanting To Keep YOUR Money Is Selfish
Oct 31, 2008 Political
First we had Joe Biden telling us that it was patriotic to pay more in taxes. He said that the rich should pay more because it is the patriotic thing to do. I am pretty sure he did not mean that those who pay no taxes are unpatriotic but that is what the statement implies.
Then came Barack Obama preaching to us from the Communist Manifesto by telling Joe the Plumber that he [Obama] wanted to “spread the wealth”. This spread the wealth theme was similar to what Obama discussed in a 2001 radio interview where he expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court did not inject itself to bring about a spreading of the wealth.
Now we have Barack Obama saying that people who object to the rich paying more in taxes are expressing a selfish attitude. While discussing his plan and saying that it will help everyone move up and be better off (it won’t) he stated:
“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this [spreading the wealth] socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.” ABC Political Punch
So, the Obama/Biden plan is that they will take more money from people making somewhere between $150 and $250 thousand dollars (In Obama’s infomercial, he said families making $200,000 a year) and give, or redistribute, it to those who pay little or no income tax. The Obama plan will increase the top tax rate from 35% to 40% and then that money will be used to send checks to people who pay NO income taxes.
Biden says doing so is patriotic and Obama says those who oppose are selfish.
Perhaps we should look at the charitable donations of the people that Obama and Biden believe are selfish and see how they compare to the candidates. Biden gave about $350 a year (would that be selfish of him). Obama gave more and a lot of it went to the church where anti American Pastor Jeremiah Wright spewed hateful and racist remarks (would this be an example of Obama’s patriotism). It is also worth mentioning that Obama has an uncle who was evicted, and aunt living in a slum and a half brother living in a hut in Kenya on his $12 a year salary. So excuse me if I doubt the sincerity of a man who says he wants to help everyone when he has not helped his own family. As president, Obama will not have to worry about taking care of his family. He can use your tax dollars to do it.
Having our money forcefully confiscated and given to someone else is not sharing and resenting the idea of doing so is not selfish. Taking money from one group who earns it and giving it to another that does not is definitely Socialism. Mr. Obama, when someone voluntarily gives money it is sharing, when money is forcefully taken and then shared, it is Socialism. There is nothing patriotic about that at all.
No matter how Obama tries to spin it and no matter how irked Joe Biden gets from the Marxist questions, the fact remains that Obama’s playbook could have been written by Marx.
No doubt though, that it was inspired by him.
Will Obama Spread The Wealth?
Oct 20, 2008 Political
When Barack Obama was speaking to the now famous Joe the Plumber he told Joe that when you spread the wealth around it is better for everyone. Obama’s entire philosophy is that government should provide and he likes to tell people how government will give them something. Whether it is health care or stimulus checks, Obama is of a mind that government is giving something.
He is incorrect because government does not have anything to give. Government is the middleman in a redistribution scheme. In order for the government to give something it has to take something. It is our money, not theirs.
Obama’s cavalier remark to Joe says a lot about the candidate. It shows us, that inside, Barack Obama believes that government should decide how much of your money you get to keep and that government can confiscate however much of it it wants and it can do what it wants with it. If government needs more money then it can just take more from you and you have no say in the matter.
You also have no say in how the money is used. Nearly 80% of Americans did not want money spent to bail out Wall Street but government spent it anyway. A vast majority of people want an end to earmarks but that has not stopped Obama from spending a million dollars a day in earmarks. There are countless programs that waste money that people do not want and see no need for (or are duplicated by other agencies) and yet government ignores what the people want. Government just takes the money and does what it wants.
Barack Obama has raised millions of dollars from people who willingly sent it to him (some even legally). That was their choice and Obama appreciates it. He did not have to earn the money and he spends it as if it grows on trees. His convention had to incur the extra expense of renting a football stadium and erecting some fancy background for him to accept the nomination. He is paying a million dollars to air a half hour ad and he spent over 800 thousand dollars for ACORN to commit fraud (and he committed fraud by reporting it as something else). He is spending money without a care because it is not his and he can always get more by sending out a plea to his supporters.
When it comes to his programs and how much he will spend, it will be only slightly different. Instead of people willingly giving money, Obama will confiscate more of it than the government already takes and he will spend it recklessly. He will spend it like it comes from an endless supply because to government, it does. That endless supply is the taxpayer who will get soaked for every spending scheme Obama enacts.
Obama will be the modern day Robbing Hood and he will take money from those who make it and give it to those who do not. This is, as he stated, spreading the wealth and contrary to what he says, it does not work out better for everyone. You get less of what you tax and more of what you subsidize. If he raises taxes he will get fewer people working or at least more of them will look for ways to shelter their income just like Obama and the rest of the politicians do. If he gives money to people who pay no taxes then more people will find ways to put their hands out.
This cannot go on for long before the entire system is bankrupt, and we are not far from that now. Look at what happened in Hawaii. Their free health care cost too much so they had to end it. Why did it cost too much? People took their children off their policies and put them on the rolls of health care paid for by someone else. If people are not forced to bear some of the burden for their own standard of living then they will abuse the system because it costs them nothing. In the case of Hawaii, free health care turned out to cost a lot.
Obama’s Freudian slip opened a telling door to his inner soul. It gave a us a clear view of his intentions and how he views the role of government as well as how he views the distribution of wealth in our country.
This country was not founded on the idea that government would take money from those who have it and give it to those who do not. We were founded on the idea that we had the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Notice that there is no right to the property of others and that would include their wealth.
When Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around he told Americans who were paying attention that they had no right to their property unless government deemed them to. He also told them that he would take what is rightfully theirs and give it to those who have no claim to it in order to make their lives better.
This is not what America is about and it smacks of socialism.
But I want to know this. Obama took in 150 million dollars in September. John McCain did not take in anything because he, unlike Obama, kept his word and took public financing. How would Obama feel if the FEC stepped in and told him he had to give half of the money he raised to John McCain? How would he like it if the FEC said that it would be better if the campaign with the least amount of money got money from the campaign that had the most? How would he like it if he were told that they did not want to punish his fund raising efforts but that the FEC believes campaigns do better when the FEC spreads the wealth?
I am willing to bet that Obama would go nuts and his supporters would be spilling their double chocolate, caramel, cinnamon, whipped cream, butterscotch lattes on their designer pants while chanting in unison about how unfair it all is (and probably blaming it on George Bush). After all, Obama worked hard for that money and it just is not fair that they would take it away and give it to another campaign to use just because that campaign accepted public funds and was not as good at fund raising. It just isn’t fair because they did not earn the money. It is not right to take it from Obama and give it to McCain just to make things fair. How is John McCain entitled to Barack Obama’s prosperity?
To which I would reply, welcome to the Republican Party.
Tags: Obama, socialism, spread wealth, taxes
Open Letter To Soros and Winfrey
Oct 15, 2008 Satire
Dear Mr. Soros and Ms. Winfrey,
I am writing to you because you are both extremely rich people who have enough money to make a lot of people millionaires without batting an eye. I appreciate the hard work you have done to earn that money and for all the years I have been political I have believed that you should keep as much of it as possible and that your tax rates should be the same as the guy making 50k a year. I mean, we all receive the same benefit from the country so why not pay the same percentage.
The purpose of my letter is to ask you for your support on behalf of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Ms. Winfrey (I watched you on WJZ in Baltimore when you did local news) I know that you are liberal and support the Obama/Biden ticket and that is your right. Mr. Soros, there is no doubt that you are liberal and so far to the left that you are holding up the wall. I need your support per the guidance of the Democrats on the top of the ticket.
Joe Biden said that people who make more than 250k should pay more in taxes because it was patriotic. This past week Barack Obama told a plumber that he wanted to redistribute the wealth because he believes that is how you make everyone successful.
Keeping this in mind, I am asking each of you to demonstrate your patriotism by sending me one million dollars. That is only 500k a piece and a drop in the bucket with regard to your total wealth. This will help you to do what Joe and Barry want. You will demonstrate you are true patriots and you will spread the wealth around (to me) so that this guy who is not rich can do better. Barry wants this, Joe wants this and I want your money. By sending it to me you will avoid the middle man known as government, an entity that seems to cause a mess when it has taxpayer money. Sending it direct is best for all concerned (especially me).
I realize that this will be a burden to me because then I will be a millionaire and have to pay higher taxes but that is a burden I am ready to bear if it will make me patriotic and help spread the wealth in Obama’s perverse version of trickle down economics. I am certainly ready to bear that burden if it means I can become a millionaire.
Before you dismiss my request outright, I again remind you that this is what YOUR candidates want you to do.
With warmest regards,
Tags: patriotism, socialism, Soros, taxes, winfrey
The Bailout Pork Bill And Responsibility
Oct 4, 2008 Political
The bailout bill just passed by the Congress and signed into law contained billions of dollars in Christmas Tree ornaments that had nothing to do with bailing anyone out. These items, including provisions for tax cuts, were added to entice politicians to vote for it. We have no business bailing out Wall Street and we have effectively taken 700 billion steps in the direction of Communism*.
I heard Jesse Jackson on Neil Cavuto’s show and Jackson said the bill did not go far enough (surprise) and that if we can give low interest loans to auto makers (we should not be doing that) we should be able to do the same for homeowners. Jackson contended that people should get low interest rate loans from the government in order to restructure their debt and continue to pay for their homes. He insisted that the predatory lending practices led to their problems. Cavuto told him that while some predatory lending took place people were the ones who signed the dotted line. He said they needed to take responsibility for their actions and if they wanted to renegotiate it was up to them to do it with the people from whom they obtained their loans.
This is absolutely correct. Homeowners need to renegotiate with their lenders to get a better deal. It is not up to taxpayers to lend money to them regardless of whether they will pay it back or not. If they default then taxpayers will be left holding the bag (much as we are with Freddie and Fannie loans). Jackson wants to take personal responsibility away from people and have big government come in and take care of them. We no more belong doing that than we belong taking care of bankers or auto makers.
The market should be allowed to react in whatever direction the crisis leads it. People and businesses with money can come in and buy up failing businesses or they can go away. Allow the market to handle the crisis and leave the politicians who caused the problems out of it.
If Jackson thinks people have no responsibility in the contracts that they make and that government should bail them out then we should have some provisions which include a loss of voting rights if you become a ward of the government. If you are not able to understand a contract to buy a home and can be easily swayed then you are unable to understand the voting system and can be just as easily manipulated.
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay only about 4% of the taxes in this country so they will not be affected by the bailout as much as those who will see tax increases in order to pay for this mess. The voting system needs to be changed so that people are afforded more votes if they pay more in taxes. Perhaps each person gets one vote and then people get an additional vote for every $5000 in taxes that they pay. The people who pay for this country should have a greater say in how it is governed much like stockholders in a company who have more votes if they have more stock.
Whether Wall Street executives or distressed homeowners, the philosophy is the same; live with your decisions. If they cause you problems then you can work your way out and be all that much stronger for it.
If government steps in and fixes your bad decisions you will continue to make them. We get more of what we subsidize.
*I heard this phrase on TV but do not know who said it.
Tags: bailout, communism, jesse jackson, pork, taxes
Obama Panders to Elderly with Tax Scheme
Aug 12, 2008 Political
Barack Obama is touting a new part to his tax plan and this new twist is designed to pander to the elderly voters, those more likely to vote for John McCain. Obama wants to make the first $50,000 of income tax free for the elderly. Tax experts indicate that this is a bad idea for a number of reasons. It has also been pointed out that many of the elderly do not pay taxes and that an arbitrary threshold might take away incentive for them to work if they will go over the limit.
Obama believes; “If you work hard and pay into the system, you’ve earned the right to a secure retirement.” [My Way News] This all sounds real good but it begs the question; if they are entitled to a secure retirement why is Obama opposed to privatizing at least a portion of Social Security? The Social Security system is broken and a lot of that is because politicians use the money taken in to pay other bills. They cannot be trusted with any money because all they now how to do is spend. In addition, the money that does survive their raids earns very little interest. Even with a turbulent economy, money placed in the market is earning more than the money held by the government.
Obama believes, as do most Democrats, that the government knows what to do with your money better than you do. John Edwards was partly correct when he said there were two Americas. Edwards believed there was one set of rules for the rich and one for the poor. In reality, there are two sets of rules but they are for the elected and the people who put them in office. While we have to worry about retirement, the elected have very nice systems all paid for by the taxpayer.
The problem with our country is that we spend too much money and the answer to our problems is always more taxes. In order for Obama to decrease or eliminate taxes on the elderly some other group will have to pay more. It is high time someone started talking about decreasing spending and lowering our taxes at the same time.
It is time for common sense plans instead of pandering. However, look for more pandering as the election draws near.
Also keep in mind that this money they discuss spending does not belong to them. They have no right to commit it to schemes that will ultimately end up costing all the producers even more money.