Tag Archives: class warfare

A Constitution Made for the Prosperity of Liberty

By Michael Lewinski 02/09/14

When our country was formed, an extraordinary generation formulated a design for a society of moral people uniquely free to pursue their individual lives, unencumbered by the heavy hand of government. Recognizing our natural, God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the founding generation created a Constitution to protect and preserve liberty. This constitutional blueprint then proceeded to generate a great prosperity throughout the 19th century up until the rise of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century.

Inch by inch, these enemies of freedom have altered America’s blueprint. Progressives undermined private property with the 16th amendment, authorizing the taxing of income. They disrupted the Republic’s balance of power with the 17th Amendment, taking from the States’ their constitutional influence with the popular election of Senators. Monetary authority was relinquished to a group of private bankers who own the Federal Reserve, and the discipline of a constitutional bi-metal monetary system was abandoned. Congress no longer declares war, and the executive branch ignores laws and re-writes others without congressional consent. In the land of the free, the government monitors its citizens, limits religious freedom, and regulates the right to bear arms. Today, our constitutional blueprint is but barely a shadow of its original instructions.

And what has this Progressive fundamental transformation of America brought us? Most importantly, we have evolved from a nation based upon the rule of law to one resting upon the injustice associated with the rule of men. They have rendered a deteriorating economy corrupted by crony capitalists and undermined by a government with tax and regulatory regimes that inhibit the creation of wealth. Standards of living are deteriorating and the middle class is disappearing as the economy punishes the working class with boneheaded policies deepening the growing Greater Depression.

Their bitter fruit is an incompetent, dysfunctional government fueled by envious, identity politics which divide the people. Maybe Thomas Jefferson was right. “In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution,” for the sake of freedom.

Debunking 5 Paul Ryan Myths

When Mitt Romney chose Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate nine days ago, he forced Democrats to engage in serious intellectual debate in the coming weeks and months, rather than demagoguing which has been the main practice of the Obama/Biden campaign as of yet.

Paul Ryan holds his Plan, The Path to American Prosperity

Well, that’s what one would have thought, because, well, conventional wisdom says so. However, in the latter, Democrats and the left have tried to demonize Paul Ryan in every way absolutely imaginable. The day after the announcement of Paul Ryan to be the running-mate of Mitt Romney, the attacks started. From Ryan’s budget, to a ‘war on women’, to Ryan ‘pushing grandma off of the cliff’, let’s debunk five myths about Paul Ryan.

1. The Ryan Plan Destroys Medicare.

The Liberal New York Congressman, Rep. Steve Israel has recently claimed that the Romney/Ryan ticket is a “nightmare for seniors who’ve earned their Medicare benefits. For the last 18 months, we’ve said Republicans will have to defend the indefensible—their vote to end Medicare.” The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been running around spewing lies claiming that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare as we know it. This wouldn’t be the first time that Schultz has lied, or probably the last. Look at what she said regarding presidential tax returns and Mitt Romney.

The Wyden-Ryan Medicare Plan – yes that is Democratic Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon – says that the plan will not affect anyone over 55. Anyone over 55 wouldn’t see a change in their plans or their benefits. Anyone under 55 wouldn’t either, unless they voluntarily chose to take part in the Plan. Washington would still be paying the premiums for the healthcare choices you made, and if you believed in the basic principles of free-market capitalism, this would improve the services while driving down the cost.

Furthermore, the liberal leaning Urban Institute recently found that the average citizen will pay $149,000 in Medicare taxes, while only taking out $351,000 in medical services during retirement. In reality, the party that doesn’t want to reform Medicare, and who doesn’t want to ‘change Medicare as we know it’, is single-handedly destroying the system from the inside out.

2. Paul Ryan is a Constitutional Obstructionist

According to a recent Gallup Poll, the 112th Congress’ approval rating has hit an all-time low. Of course, Obama, his administration, and his campaign blame the GOP for the gridlock in Congress, which may we not forget; Paul Ryan is a part of. It’s not necessarily fair, considering the House has passed massive amount of bills that focus on economic recovery that have been killed by Harry Reid in the Senate. May we also not forget that, a) Obama’s ‘serious’ budget was rejected by everyone in both the House and the Senate, and b) Ryan’s Budget passed the House by a vote of  228-191.

Contrary to what the President said yesterday during his surprise visit to the press room of the White House, he is stepping across the preverbal line ‘in the sand’. “So, if you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities. It’s time to put politics aside and pass it right away,” the President said last week in Iowa. But in fact, the House has already passed a measure that helps farmers that have been struck financially by the drought.

3. The Ryan Budget is Extreme

President Obama’s Campaign Manager, Jim Messina, someone who probably actually hasn’t sat down and read the Ryan Plan, is calling the plan ‘radical’.

New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman, is spewing the common lies about the Ryan Plan. He said the plan, “would kill people, no question,” while the Plan would “cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge.” In defense of Coolidge, life wasn’t that bad under his leadership – low taxation, high economic growth and relative peace. But, to anyone’s surprise, this isn’t true. The Ryan Plan only brings back non-military discretionary spending to the 2008 levels. The plan also cuts the federal bureaucracy and it’s subsidies by 10% and it reforms the compensation plans of federal employees.

But when we talk about discretionary spending as a percentage of the entire budget, you don’t have to be an economic genius to know that Krugman does have a point, but a very misleading one at that. Because mandatory spending has grown at about six times that of discretionary spending over the past 20 years, it’s really easy to argue that President Obama will keep discretionary spending at levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge – anyone could.

However, there are a lot of Conservatives that aren’t exactly in love with the Ryan Budget. For one, it balances the budget over ten years versus the Connie-Mac Penny Plan which balances the budget over eight years. Don’t we know that anything a president implements that expands past his time in office, usually never completely comes to fruition? Meaning, I seriously doubt that the Ryan Budget would make it all ten years.

Moreover, the Ryan Plan only reduces spending from current levels of 24% down to 19.8% of the GDP. Several leading economists have pointed out that this would only bring down federal expenditures to post-WWII levels. Furthermore, in the Ryan Budget federal spending increases over the next ten years, and revenue each year after. The budget would expand from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022.

4. Ryan is at ‘War with Women’

Didn’t we all see this one coming? It’s a classic ‘hail mary’ out of the playbook of the left against anyone on the right. Democratic Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy said that Ryan “believes we should ban all birth control as well. He voted for that.” The President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, said that Ryan “supported the ‘Let Women Die Bill,’ which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it.”

Gosh, Ryan really does hate woman, right? Wrong. Ryan has never voted or said any of these things that he is being accused of. However, he did vote for the “Protect Life Act,” which would have, if it passed, rewritten provisions in Obamacare that allowed for federal subsidies to be provided for abortions. Ironic, because liberals and the left already claim that the government doesn’t fund abortions. “Protect Life Act,” also had a provision that exempted Catholic hospitals from having to pay for contraception or abortions. He also supported a bill that would have dulled the HHS Mandate that Catholic hospitals provide free condoms.

5. Ryan’s Plan Favors the Rich

Another classic play from the playbook of those on the left – class warfare. A day on the campaign trail just wouldn’t be right with a little class warfare. Many on the left have claimed that Romney “chose a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment” of a “new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy…”

Regardless of what you will hear from Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton or an Obama SuperPAC add, there are absolutely zero special tax cuts in the Ryan Budget ‘for the wealthy’. Common sense tells you that when Washington enacts across-the-board tax reform, the rich (who already pay the vast majority of the taxes) are likely to benefit. Ryan’s Plan however, only supports keeping the current tax rates that we’ve had for the last decade – one’s that a lot on the left have also supported.

What the Ryan plan does do is simplify our tax system. We currently have a six-bracket tax system. Under the Ryan Plan, this would be simplified to two tax brackets – the lower bracket being a 10% bracket, and the upper bracket being a 25% bracket. This plan fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax, and cuts corporate tax rates to reflect those of other competitive nations to the U.S. Ryan and Romney both also support closing loopholes that wealthy Americans disproportionally use.

 

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

Obama’s Rich Bashing Is Backfiring

President Obama and his team thought they could deliver a headshot to Romney with the grossly inaccurate Bain ad that detailed how they closed GST Steel.  Well, Romney left Bain in 1999 and GST Steel folded in 2001.  Not to mention, Bain’s managing director, Jonathan Lavine, was still at Bain when GST closed its doors. Mr. Lavine also happens to be an Obama bundler raising between $100-200,000 for the president’s re-elect campaign.  I’ve mentioned this in a previous post.

However,the president continues to push this anti-Bain narrative, which isn’t sticking and killing his chances at winning the affluent vote.  Yes, bashing the rich may seem like the “cool” and “liberal” thing to do, but, as Michael Barone aptly pointed out, the last class warfare president that won was Harry Truman in 1948.  The same could be said about Obama’s populist vein.  The last populist president elected was Andrew Jackson.  History seems to be against him.

Barone wrote:

Today there are a lot more affluent people. The 2008 exit poll told us that 26 percent of voters had household incomes over $100,000. Half of them voted for Obama. He needs those votes again. My hunch is that Obama’s attacks on Bain will strike most affluent voters as offputting and that Romney’s calm responses will strike them as reassuring. If you want more jobs created, you don’t go around attacking job creators. Most affluent voters believe that free markets, appropriately regulated, tend to produce fair outcomes. They see investors not as vultures but as creators of jobs and promoters of innovation that increase national productivity and make everyone better off. They see class warfare as attacks on themselves.

Furthermore, Barone cites areas where the president is probably already doomed.  Especially, in states he needs to win this November to continue his agenda of dependency and big government policies.  Policies that have not reduced the high unemployment rate, gave us consecutive trillion dollar deficits, and added another $5 trillion dollars to the national debt.   The rich, and Americans in general, see Obama as ineffectual and totally antithetical to the values he promised to bring to Washington.  This is starting to have an effect no matter how much Obama tries to pivot on the matter.  Barone continues by listing how the president is losing his grip on this demographic that he needs to win again to ensure re-election.

Here’s evidence that Obama has already lost many affluent voters. The popular vote in House elections is a good proxy for presidential and party support, and voters with incomes over $100,000, evenly split in 2008, voted 58 to 40 percent for Republicans in 2010.

Northern Virginia, which Obama carried 59 to 40 percent and which provided 95 percent of his statewide popular vote margin, went 52 to 47 percent for House Republicans in 2010. Nine suburban Denver counties voted 53 to 46 percent for Obama but switched in 2010 to 54 to 42 percent Republican.

Virginia and Colorado are on everyone’s target state list. But Obama also hurt the Democratic brand among affluent voters in other states.

The four suburban counties outside Philadelphia voted 57 to 42 percent for Obama but 52 to 47 percent Republican in 2010. The six suburban counties outside Detroit voted 54 to 45 percent for Obama but 53 to 44 percent Republican in 2010. That means Pennsylvania and Michigan could be in play.

Affluent suburbs outside the South trended heavily toward Democrats in from 1992 to 2008. Now they seem to be trending Republican.

All we need is Romney, who finally clinched the nomination in last night’s Texas primary, to stay focused and hammer the president on the economy, the debt, deficit, high unemployment, and the rest of his dismal record.  However, expect this 2012 election to be the dirtiest since 1824.

Class Warfare Card Played Again




Have you ever heard of Rick Bookstaber? He is an Obama appointee who currently sits on the “Financial Stability Oversight Council” that was created by the passage of the Dodd-Frank bill that was rammed through Congress while Democrats still had control of both the House and Senate. The goal of the council is to “ensure the stability of our nation’s financial system.”

Well, guess what! Bookstaber believes that class warfare “is justifiable, and indeed ultimately inevitable.” It seems that on Monday, May 7, 2012, Bookstaber took issue with Fox’s Tucker Carlson’s accusations that liberals were engaging in “class warfare” by seeking to blame the nation’s fiscal problems on a small number of wealthy individuals.

You must read for yourself what Bookstaber wrote, including his quote of Karl Marx in an attempt to justify his position, to believe it. Bookstaber, at his personal blog, wrote regarding class warfare: “There is little that matches the artfulness in waving off criticism of the widening income gap as ‘class warfare’. And there is little that matches the gullibility of those who follow along.”

Bookstaber continues: “It is hard to discuss class warfare without referring back to the industrial revolution. Then class warfare centered on the length of the working day. So it is not surprising that Marx stated the central battle of class warfare at the time in terms of the working day:” Between equal rights force decides. – Karl Marx, Das Kapital

“Marx,” Bookstaber writes, “…argues that the question of the length of the working day cannot be solved by an appeal to rights, but only through class struggle, wherein ‘force’ decides between ‘equal rights’. (Force can mean physical force, but can also mean the force of the political process).” “There is class warfare because the social and economic pie has to be split, and there is no objective way to do so. The war can be active or passive, the sides can have a truce, one side can temporarily be resigned to its lot or be held in check through force, but the conflict never ends.” Here Bookstaber shows his true colors when he says, “…pie has to be split, and there is no objective way to do so.” He is saying that the current economic system is a zero-sum game, that economic growth is not possible, that one side’s gain is the other side’s loss.

He further contends that, “The time spent working and the share of that labor that accrued to the capitalists during the emergence of the industrial revolution is akin to the taxes and redistributions from the entitlement programs and government subsidies that are in the cross hairs today. Indeed, the timeline extends back even further. The benefits that we call entitlements are similar in our more advanced society to the rights of subsistence for the serfs during Feudal times – rights which were implicit in the social contract between lord and serf, and which were broken at the peril of revolt. The social contract between the lord and serf, as with any contract, had obligations on both sides. The serfs paid a portion of their production and provided service to the lords. The lords organized the serfs to defend against invasion, enforced a rule of law, and assured the serfs, as much as possible in that age, of subsistence. Is this so different from social contracts of today?”  [emphasis mine]

All we can do is slowly shake our heads in disbelief and wait for November to come.

May I suggest that you see for yourself what Bookstaber wrote before the Obama minions make Bookstaber pull what he wrote!

But that’s just my opinion.

“It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.” – Ronald Reagan

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

Tilting at Giants

Don_Quixote-238x300

Just like a modern-day Don Quixote, President Barack Obama is traversing his presidency tilting his lance at imaginary foes – the successful, corporations, private property and liberty. Unfortunately, his efforts are much more dangerous than Quixote’s ineffective attacks on windmills.

Don Quixote: Dost not see? A monstrous giant of infamous repute whom I intend to encounter.
Sancho Panza: It’s a windmill.
Don Quixote: A giant. Canst thou not see the four great arms whirling at his back?
Sancho Panza: A giant?
Don Quixote: Exactly.

Just as Quixote tried to convince his faithful companion of the imaginary monster, Obama has spent the entirety of his Presidency trying to convince Americans that successful business-owners and corporations are the monstrous giants of infamous repute that must be felled at the earliest opportunity and by any means necessary. Notions that would have been thought crazy, un-American and oppressive are now courses of action from the Administration and the Democrat party.

While the roughly 50% of us that pay any appreciable taxes at all are being asked to pay an increasing amount of money for a broken public education system, unsustainable entitlement programs, planned parenthood’s activities and more almost half of Americans pay no or near zero income taxes to support these failing progressive dreams. The administration is focused on making those who pay the most the monster, in hopes of getting voters to tilt their lances at the evil successful people although they are no more harmful and even more productive than the windmills they actually represent.

The Obama administration has taken fairness into the realm of class warfare. Where fair isn’t actually about equal, but instead, an almost religious obsession with a false equality – a Marxist kind of equality.

The Constitution does not promise equality of condition. Americans are not guaranteed success – only the right to pursue it at their own risk. Great risk for great reward, ultimate reward for ultimate risk and the possibility that the risks don’t pay off at all. Those willing to take the greatest risk cannot continue to also bear the brunt of the costs for the progressive Utopia. Too much more “fairness” out of the government and no one will be willing to take the risks necessary to start new companies if the rewards are distributed to those that take no risk at all.

Obama’s FY2013 budget is the latest salvo against real equality. It asks the 10% that already pay 70% of all income taxes to pay more, while allowing those that pay nothing to continue freeloading. Will it be when the top 10% are paying 80% of all income taxes and 60% are paying none that the successful give in, give up and join the 60%? Who will then create the jobs?

There is no monster here. Business owners do not have a civic responsibility to feed the masses, provide a retirement or healthcare. They should be allowed to make products and perform services that will in-turn employ people who can then make those things happen. There is nothing evil about creating a business, making a profit and deciding how to spend the wealth gained.

Then again, in “The Man from La Mancha” this interchange leads me to believe that perhaps the Governor is more of Obama’s ilk:

The Governor: We generally fine a prisoner all his possessions.
Miguel de Cervantes: All of them?
The Governor: It’s not practical to take more.

 

Obama's Class Warfare Continues




During his State of the Union (SOTU) address, President Barack Hussein Obama had Debbie Bosanke, Warren Buffett‘s secretary, be his guest and sit with Michelle Obama. Obama claims that Ms. Bosanke told him that she pays a higher tax rate than her boss, Warren Buffett on of the richest men in the world. Obama said that her paying a higher tax rate “just wasn’t fair.” So, with Obama’s penchant for telling half-truths, I thought a little deeper examination of his remark, which he has lately often repeated, was in order. Obama said, in the SOTU, “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.” Taken at face value, his statement seems that his “fairness” claim is justified. But, as Paul Harvey used to say, here is “the rest of the story.”

First, Obama was less than completely truthful when he said that Warren Buffett and his secretary, Debbie Bosanke, are not subject to the same tax rate. Obama said “tax rate,” when, in fact, there are different rates based on how people are paid. The capital gains tax rate is different from the salary tax rate. In reality, Buffett and his secretary are subject to the same tax rate if both of them derive income from capital gains. If Ms. Bosanke invested in stocks that pay a dividend, then she is paying the same rate as Buffett: 15%.

Second, if Ms. Bosanke gets a salary, she is still paying the same rate as her boss if he derives any income from a salary. If Mr. Buffett was paid a salary of ALL his income, he would have payed a higher rate than his secretary because the tax rate on salaries is progressive. The more you make the higher percentage you pay.

Third, 2009 IRS tax rates show some very interesting results. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of 19%, higher than the rate Obama claims Buffett pays. So, using Obama’s “logic,” Buffet must pay Ms. Bosanke a salary above $200,000. She is hardly the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.

Fourth, despite her heavy tax burden, Ms. Bosanke last year was able to purchase a second home in Arizona, a residence complete with a swimming pool and a professional PGA putting green, according to real estate records. Poor thing. She’s destitute! Awwwwwwwwwwwwww!

Bottom line: Buffett and his secretary were taxed at the same rate on dividends. And Buffett’s salary, if he was paid any, would be taxed exactly as his secretary’s salary. ANYTHING Obama says, just like Bill Clinton, must be carefully parsed and analyzed. While truthful (more or less), he is less than forthcoming with ALL the facts needed to form a complete picture and make a decision. Obama used Warren Buffett and his secretary as props to support his continued class warfare rhetoric.

But that’s just my opinion.

Hey Barack: What is One’s “Fair Share”?

I have heard Barack Obama’s latest campaign tactic and it set me to thinking. Obama is going to give up the hope and change tactic and run on the premise that rich people aren’t paying their “fair share” of taxes. That brings me to some interesting questions. How much is one’s “fair share”? How much is my “fair share”? Am I paying my “fair share”, and my “fair share” of what? Who determines what a person’s “fair share” is? Who is already paying their “fair share” and who is not?

Today I heard excerpts from an interview of T. Boone Pickens on MSNBC. He said that in the last 13 years, since turning 70 years of age, he has paid over $665 million in taxes to the federal government. One of the panelists snippingly asked Pickens how much money he has made in those 13 years. I consider that information none of her business, and a non-factor in answering the questions I posed at the beginning of this article. I would think that anyone who has paid that much money in a 13 year period has paid their “fair share” of taxes. I will get back to this in a bit.

Last year (2010), my wife and I paid just over $5,000 in income taxes. When I averaged out the taxes Pickens has paid over 13 years it comes out to $51.1 million per year, on average. So, have my wife and I paid our “fair share” compared to the massive amount paid by Pickens?  What about the 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes at all? How much is their “fair share”? What about those who not only don’t pay any income tax, but instead, receive the Earned Income Tax Credit? How much is their “fair share”? What about the illegal aliens who flood our emergency rooms, hospitals, and schools, yet pay not one dime in income taxes? How much is their “fair share”?

Do those who contribute nothing to the national defense deserve their “fair share” of protection from police or military forces? Do those who pay no income taxes deserve their “fair share” of use of the highways, bridges, and other infrastructure built with my tax money? Do those who pay no income taxes deserve their “fair share” of hospitals and schools that I help pay for but use very little? As a matter of fact, my children are grown, so I don’t use the schools at all; so how much of my “fair share” should go to provide schools for those paying nothing?

T. Boone Pickens makes hundreds of millions every year I am sure, but so what? I wonder how much of the resources provided by federal, state, and local governments Pickens uses. Does he receive food stamps? Uh, let me go out on a limb and say, probably not. Does he get WIC? Once again, probably not. Does he go to the emergency room every time he sneezes for free medicine? NOOOOOO, I don’t think so!!!!!!!

Does T. Boone Pickens get more protection from the local police than those who pay no taxes at all? Doubtful. Is Pickens safer from terrorists or is he provided protection that isn’t available to any other American citizen, and most illegal aliens? I would again say that this is doubtful. So, how do we determine the “fair share” of taxes between T. Boone Pickens and my wife and I?

I can say that my wife and I also do not have any government assistance. We don’t receive food stamps, earned income tax credit, WIC, subsidized housing, or any other government hand-out, nor does Pickens, I would think. So where is the discrepancy between the “fair share” paid by Pickens, the Russell household, and those who pay nothing? How does one put a scale to the governmental benefits the Pickens and Russell households don’t receive?

Now back to the MSNBC twit asking T. Boone Pickens how much money he has made over the last 13 years. Who cares how much he has made? Why does this talking head think it is her business how much money he has made? How much money has she made? I wonder if she would think her income is any of my business. How much money has she paid towards her “fair share” of government largesse?

Here we have the crux of the issue from the Marxists in the media and the Democrat Party. Here is a man who has paid hundreds of millions in taxes, has donated hundreds of millions more, of his own money, to Oklahoma State University and countless other public and private institutions. He is being pilloried by a sanctimonious nobody who probably has not spent one dime of her own money to help anyone in need.

We call this class warfare. Class warfare, to me, is just about the lowest form of “journalism” or politics there is. Obama uses this class warfare to pit us against each other while he schemes on ways to enslave all of us and take the money of the “rich” for himself and his friends. If you think any of these people care about your well-being, you might want to open your eyes and take a look around.

How did the French Revolution work out for the “poor” when all of the wealthy aristocrats got their wealth confiscated and their heads chopped off? How many Russian peasants got rich as a result of the 1917 revolution there? How many of those who bought Hitler’s class warfare lie wound up better off as a result of the Third Reich? How many Cuban peasants benefited from the Castro overthrow of Batista? Did these actions create pillars of wealth as the result of class warfare or did they create hell holes of poverty, suffering, and death?

Let me use this class warfare in another way, since the left likes this tactic so much. The Obama family has gone to Spain, on the taxpayer dime. The Obama family has gone to Martha’s Vineyard how many times, on the taxpayer dime? The Obama family has gone to Hawaii how many times, on the taxpayer dime? And aren’t they going again for a 17 day vacation? Barack and Michele went to a Broadway play, on Air Force One, at taxpayer expense. Barack and Michele travelled to Martha’s Vineyard on separate 747’s, 3 hours apart, at taxpayer expense. And to top that off, the family dog has his own Lear jet to take him to the same vacation spot a few hours later. All of this has occurred in the last 3 years.

The Obama family dog has his own Lear jet, paid for by taxpayers, and my wife and I can’t afford to drive a few hours for a weekend vacation. By the way, my cat would love her “fair share” of Lear jet travel that the first dog gets. In the 22 years my wife and I have been married we have taken 3 vacations. Has the Obama family had their “fair share” of vacations? If I tried to lists all of Obama’s vacations and golf outings in the last 3 years, this would run on for 40 pages. I think they have had their “fair share” of vacations. Shouldn’t they take a few less vacations and have some “vacation equality” to go along with their “income equality”? Shouldn’t the royal family share some of the sacrifices they always speak of We the People making?

Let’s take a look at Obamacare, the crown jewel of the administration so far. I suggest that we have some “fair share” in Obamacare. What about the 1800 exemptions given to unions and Democrat Party supporting companies. Are these unions and companies getting their “fair share” of exemptions or are they being given preferential treatment? Where is the “fair share” of exemptions for the rest of us?

In 2010, General Electric, the parent company of NBC and huge supporter of the Democrat Party, paid no corporate taxes on $5 billion in net profits. How much should GE’s “fair share” come to? Huge amounts of tax dollars were given to Wall Street by Obama and Congress in the TARP and “stimulus” bailouts. How much should their “fair share” come to? Nancy Pelosi has seen her net worth triple since she has been in congress. Her “fair share” is how much?

When you travel down the road of class warfare you find a dead end road littered with the corpses of millions who have travelled that road before you. You won’t find the corpses of the Obamas of the world, because they are the ones killing those whose corpses you see. Class warfare ends in tragedy for nations and the people who inhabit those nations. Despots throughout history have used class warfare to divide, then conquer, and then slaughter the people. These despots then take their “fair share” of the wealth and live opulent lives.

Obama and his cohorts in Congress and the media have the same fate in mind for us, We the People. Once Despot Obama’s class warfare tactic has succeeded he will turn into a real-life nightmare like those who have preceded him; Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Pol Pot, and others who have destroyed the very people they promised to help. Obama, the Democrat Party, the media, Hollywood leftists, and many in the Republican Party will divvy up the spoils while the rest of us live in abject poverty.

If you want this kind of life then support Obama and his Axis of Evil helpers. If not, search for the one who will deliver us from a fate seen by so many people before us. Dig deep into the character and actions of those Republicans who are “not as bad as Obama” and see where they will take you. New World Order globalism isn’t trademarked by the Democrat party. Republicans have a mighty big piece of the tyranny pie ready and waiting for those who don’t do due diligence before voting.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
December 8, 2011

Obama – Hoist With His Own Petard


Perhaps President Barack Obama, when videotaping his weekly address, should, before opening his mouth, at least look at what his own administration is releasing. Obama made a demonstrably false statement about what has happened to incomes of middle-class Americans over the past thirty years.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report entitled, “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.” The very first sentence (page 11 in the .pdf file) of this report revealed a fact that runs counter to the impression Americans get from the MSM about what happened to the average American’s income in the approximately three decades that preceded 2008, the year that Obama was elected president. It said that after deducting federal taxes, accounting for government transfer payments (redistributions of wealth) and adjusting for inflation, the income of the average American household had grown significantly in the 28 years from 1979 to 2007.   [emphasis mine]   “From 1979 to 2007, average household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes, grew by 65 percent.” The “middle class,” BTW are represented (in this histogram) by the second, third, and fourth quintiles.

Said Obama during his Saturday, October 29, 2011, weekly address, “This week, a new economic report confirmed what most Americans already believe to be true: over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier.” He continued, “And this has happened during a period where the cost of everything from health care to college has skyrocketed.” But… the increases in income that the CBO documented were in inflation-adjusted dollars, meaning that each type of household saw its income rise over and above the level of inflation between 1979 and 2007.

It must really hurt to be “hoist with his own petard,” but Obama doesn’t care since the MSM will slavishly broadcast anything he says.

But that’s just my opinion.

The Benefits of Income Inequality

A favorite talking points of the liberal left is how “the gap between the top 1% of earners and the middle class is…”. Or how “the incomes of the top 1% are growing by x% compared to the working class”. As if the top 1% doesn’t work. These citations are laughable. Not because the person spewing them is ignorant of economics, or because the successful like to see people supposedly left behind by our economic system. No, the reason these sorts of statistics make are ridiculous is because they indicate that it is still possible to get rich in this country despite starting out, well, not rich.

When someone points out that incomes for the top 1% have increased, they want their audience to assume that over time, it is the same individuals occupying the positions that make up the top 1%. “The rich get richer” is a phrase most know and even take for granted, without ever asking what it means. For example, IRS data show that by 2005, most of those who were in the top 1% of wage earners in 1996 had been replaced. This doesn’t sound like a rigid class system the left wants us to believe is in place.

Another conclusion the liberal commentator is taking for granted is that viewers/readers think that income gaps are a bad thing. The fact that conservative politicians never defend income gaps lead me to believe liberals are winning this PR battle. But let me attempt to at least begin a discussion on the matter. First, if people earn higher incomes or hold more wealth, then in a free market this is a signal to anyone else that it is achievable for them too. I think it would be much more depressing to be the richest man in the world and living in a cave than an average wage earner living in an air conditioned house with a car and a refrigerator. For the guy in the cave there isn’t anywhere else to go. For me, well, I’ve met people who live well beyond any means by which I am currently capable. This is also not a permanent condition. If I work hard enough and want that lifestyle, I can have it.

A second reason income inequality, specifically expansion at the top, is a good thing, is that overall wealth is continuing to grow at a high rate. Wealth expansion, over time, benefits everyone. If wealth were expanding faster at the bottom of the income spectrum, it would mean a devastating lack of investment opportunities. Capital doesn’t operate in a vacuum, and those who possess it generally do not hoard it. Instead, they look to place it in the hands of the capable, who will, in turn, create future income streams. These are the entrepreneurs looking to create the next big idea that we will all wait in line overnight to have. And since they force nothing on no one, without them, we all lose. Without them, quality of life stagnates. There would be no iPad, iPhone, or even rotary phone. Innovation requires capital and carries risk, but this seems lost on our liberal commentator.

Finally, an assumption that those bemoaning the gap between rich and poor want us to make is that wealth is like a pie – the more you have, the less I have. While at any given time, in a momentary snapshot, it is true that wealth is fixed. But next year, next month, or even in the next second, total wealth in the world can expand or contract. Throughout history, it has expanded, with most all of it happening since the Enlightenment. Instead of a pie, it is more accurate to think of wealth as the number system. Any number you can imagine, no matter how large, there exists an infinite amount higher. It is the same with an economy. While all of the assets in the world are finite, there is always room to expand. We can all get richer, and despite efforts to convince you otherwise, we have all gotten richer. Life expectancy and quality are at all time highs. It can keep moving upward, although much more easily if people are encouraged to create, rather than made to feel jealous of those who have.

« Older Entries