Wanna set the liberal mindset RIGHT? Start with this concise explanation of how Barack Obama’s class warfare tax the rich political posturing is nothing more than an outright lie intended to manipulate the votes of ignorant Americans.
President Barack Obama, who himself has never held a private sector job during his adult life, has repeated over and over again that wealthy Americans need to “pay their fair share”. The method to this government imposed fairness is of course, higher taxes. The classification of wealthy by Mr. Obama, based upon previous targets set by his own administration, are individuals and/or business earning approximately $200,000 per year. It’s these entities, according to the current president, who have not been paying enough to the government.
As the 2012 election cycle is now underway, it is clear it will be this method of dividing America between the so-called haves and the have nots that is to be the foundation of Barack Obama’s hopes for another four years as the Class Warfare President of America. And it is this theme that will be repeated over and over again by his liberal supporters, and, more worrisome, by the many voters who simply don’t pay attention until it is very nearly time to vote. The mainstream media is already attempting to bury the collective subconscious of these millions of voters with the “fair share” message.
The fact is though – Barack Obama is lying. His campaign is lying. His supporters are lying, or just as likely – ignorant of the facts. It is their goal though to ensure that if the lie is repeated enough, facts will become meaningless. The lie then becomes the reality.
Here are but a few simple facts to dispel the “pay their fair share” mantra of the Obama campaign:
-The Bush tax cuts were tax cuts on ALL wage earners – and more importantly, on middle and lower income earners. Rarely heard from the mainstream media is that while middle and lower tax rates have gone down considerably over the last 30 years, the tax rates for “wealthy” Americans has remained roughly the same. Therefore, the increasing budget deficits being created in America have far more to do with BIG GOVERNMENT spending, and an ever-increasing number of Americans who are paying little to NOTHING in federal income tax, while using the vast majority of government programs. In that respect – they are in fact the 99% – these people pay less than 1% while using up 99% of government programs. It is the essence of upside-down socialized government that has been has created the economic crisis now facing so many European nations. And it is that kind of crisis scenario that Barack Obama and his supporters are intent on bringing to America.
-Those same Bush tax cuts that liberals like to demonize so often did cut federal income rates on the top wage earners by about 11% The rate cut for the lowest wage earners was over 40%. Have you ever heard a member of the media, or a Democrat, or Barack Obama EVER mention that simple fact?
-Overall federal revenue during the Bush years INCREASED despite those evil tax cuts. They provided further proof of how tax cuts stimulate economic growth which in turn creates more revenue for the government. in 2007 total federal revenue was approximately 18.5% of GDP. The average between the years of 1960-2000 was 18.2%. Those Bush tax cuts ended up pushing the nation’s GDP well above the historical average for the last 40 years.
-If Barack Obama were to take EVERY penny and property from every billionaire American in the country, the amount would be approximately 1.6 trillion dollars. Since 2008 the Obama policies alone have contributed $7 TRILLION to the national debt.
-The top 1% of all wage earners are paying approximately 30% of ALL federal income taxes. The top 20% pay nearly 70% of ALL federal income taxes. By contrast, nearly HALF of all Americans are now paying NO federal income taxes.
-Approximately 30% of Americans pay NO federal income tax but received money BACK - often thousands of dollars of “free” money each year. And where does this money come from that is given to millions of Americans? That’s right – those evil “wealthy Americans” Barack Obama is always complaining about.
So given this information – that a minority of Americans are now paying the vast majority in federal income taxes – just what does Barack Obama mean when he demands this same minority pay their fair share? What then of the larger majority who are paying NO federal income taxes?
Barack Obama lies. Barack Obama attempts to take one group of Americans and pit them against another group of Americans – the very kind of politics Martin Luther King Jr. died fighting against.
Will America accept Obama’s lies and division politics and re-elect him in 2012?
How I woke up to the untruths of Barack Obama
The President’s State of the Union address was as weaselly as any politician’s could be.
President Obama delivers his State of the Union address
By Christopher Booker
When I happened to wake up in the middle of the night last Wednesday and caught the BBC World Service’s live relay of President Obama’s State of the Union address to Congress, two passages had me rubbing my eyes in disbelief.
The first came when, to applause, the President spoke about the banking crash which coincided with his barnstorming 2008 election campaign. “The house of cards collapsed,” he recalled. “We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them.” He excoriated the banks which had “made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money”, while “regulators looked the other way and didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behaviour”. This, said Obama, “was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work.”
I recalled a piece I wrote in this column on January 29, 2009, just after Obama took office. It was headlined: “This is the sub-prime house that Barack Obama built”. As a rising young Chicago politician in 1995, no one campaigned more actively than Mr Obama for an amendment to the US Community Reinvestment Act, legally requiring banks to lend huge sums to millions of poor, mainly black Americans, guaranteed by the two giant mortgage associations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was this Act, above all, which let the US housing bubble blow up, far beyond the point where it was obvious that hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be likely to default. Yet, in 2005, no one more actively opposed moves to halt these reckless guarantees than Senator Obama, who received more donations from Fannie Mae than any other US politician (although Senator Hillary Clinton ran him close).
A later passage in Obama’s speech, when he hailed the way his country’s energy future has been transformed by the miracle of shale gas, met with a storm of applause. Not only would this give the US energy security for decades, creating 600,000 jobs, but it could now go all out to exploit its gas and oil reserves (more applause). Yet this was the man who in 2008 couldn’t stop talking about the threat of global warming, and was elected on a pledge to make the US only the second country in the world, after Britain, to commit to cutting its CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by 80 per cent within 40 years.
RELATED ARTICLES
The facts about child snatching can be reported in Norway – but not here 28 Jan 2012
Obama draws election battle lines in State of the Union address 25 Jan 2012
Timeline: The sub-prime mortgage crisis 14 Sep 2007
Iranian dissidents face a tragic final act at Ashraf 01 Jan 2011
We’ll soon forget the David Cameron ‘veto’ that never was 17 Dec 2011
Even more telling than his audience’s response to this, however, was what happened when Obama referred briefly to the need to develop “clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes”. But no mention now of vast numbers of wind turbines – those props beside which he constantly chose to be filmed back in 2008. No harking back to his boast that “renewable energy” would create “four million jobs”. And even to this sole fleeting reminder of what, four years ago, was his flagship policy the response of Congress was a deafening silence.
A few months after Obama entered the White House, I suggested here that the slogan on which he was elected – “Yes we can” – seemed to have changed to “No we can’t”. It was already obvious that, having won election as an ideal Hollywood version of what “the first black President” should look and sound like, he was in reality no more than a vacuum. His speech last week was as weaselly as any politician’s performance could be, not least in its references to the sub-prime scandal.
But on no issue has this been more obvious than political America’s wholesale retreat from the great fantasy of global warming – which leaves Britain as the only country committed to the insanity of cutting “carbon emissions” by four-fifths in less than four decades. President Obama and the rest of the world have moved on.
UN envoy consigns Iranian exiles to ‘prison’ in a shameful deal with Tehran
The week before Christmas, I reported on what appeared to be a fast-looming tragedy. In Iraq, 3,300 unarmed Iranian exiles, who had lived since the 1980s at Camp Ashraf, a neat town they built in the desert near the Iranian border, were being threatened with massacre on December 31.
The threat was issued by Iraq’s prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, acting in conjunction with Iran’s murderous Revolutionary Guards, who regard the People’s Mujahideen of Iran (the PMOI), part of the National Council for Resistance in Iran, as their most hated enemies. As the deadline neared, following intense diplomatic activity, not least by the US government (which gave a written guarantee of protection to each of the Ashraf residents in 2003, in return for the surrender of their arms), the UN signed an agreement with the Iraqi government, brokered by the UN’s special representative in Iraq, Martin Kolber, a former German diplomat.
The Ashraf residents would be transferred to Camp Liberty, a former US base covering 25 square miles near Baghdad, from where the UN would arrange their transfer to third countries. On Christmas Day, this was welcomed by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
It then emerged, however, that the 3,300 exiles would only be permitted to occupy a tiny corner of Camp Liberty, barely quarter of a mile square, which had been completely looted, was without running water and around which the Iraqis were erecting a 15ft concrete wall. They would not be allowed to bring vehicles or personal belongings, or leave the camp. Far from being offered a safe haven, it seemed, they were to await their fate crammed into what the European Council last week denounced as “a prison”, watched inside and out by armed Iraqi and Iranian guards.
As scandalous as anything in the past month has been the part played by the UN’s Mr Kolber who, far from protesting at this betrayal, met in Baghdad with the Iranian ambassador, himself a senior Revolutionary Guards commander. After the meeting he announced first that 750, then 1,250, of the exiles were willing to return to Iran. There is nothing they could dread more, since they know that they would either be imprisoned or killed. But Kobler’s claim has been trumpeted by Tehran as a victory, and the deadly impasse remains.
General David Phillips, the former head of the US Military Police, who gave the Ashraf residents those personal guarantees of their safety, has expressed his anguish at these developments. He has now been joined in protesting at the betrayal by an array of distinguished international figures, including Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
But on what authority could a UN official become party to this inhuman deal? And why does our Government appear to condone what is going on? The Foreign Office recently confirmed to me that they still regard the PMOI as terrorists, despite being told in 2008 that they must remove it from their list of proscribed terrorist organisations, when Lord Chief Justice Philips ruled that they had been unable to produce a shred of evidence to justify this. What dark game are they all playing – in our name?
Here is a link to a Rush Limbaugh article which explains (in simple language) why increasing taxes on the rich is class warfare and just can’t solve our debt issue. It is worth the read~~
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/08/05/there_aren_t_enough_rich_to_tax
Why is it that beside UM and a couple insiders who fear to remain anything but anonymous the truth we receive is from the UK and Canada…the UN must go, Obama and his communist Glibalists must be defeated
Mr Sunday and his soup making bride.
Well, nevermind Justa’s post is gone. Apparently she is friends with Mrs. Sunday.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds: “White House staffers owe more than $800,000 in back taxes”. Class warfare and Racist dribble is ALL this pretend-iz-ident has left
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/white-house-staffers-owe-more-than-in-back-taxes-112412.html
And Queen Mooch recently spent . . . $50,000 . . . fifty thousand dollars . . . on fancy lingerie:
PRICELESS
“Agent Provocateur saw sales jump by more than 12pc, helped by US First Lady Michelle Obama spending $50,000 (£31,794) in one shopping spree.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/9048122/Agent-Provocateur-sales-boosted-by-US-First-Lady-Michelle-Obama.html
With Moochelle’s size, it probably all had to be specially tailored/made! [$50k is probably more than anyone else would spend in a lifetime, however...]
.
Wow! Some of those facts I didn’t even know. Thanks UM!
You are not free when at least one third of your income is directly confiscated out of your paycheck without your consent. Taxes are the modern day equivalent of slavery. How else could anyone define them? You work and the fruits of your labor are stolen from you at gunpoint if necessary. Doesn’t sound too free to me. Income taxes are nothing but legalized theft of private property. The only tax permitted under the Constitution is a consumption based tax, ie a sales or excise tax and that’s it! Income taxes should be eliminated and instead we should have a Fair tax not a flat tax. A fair tax would result in more taxpayers, the poor, illegal aliens and the rich who use loopholes currently to get a way with not paying.
Yep, thus the many modern T.E.A. party protests.
The elected thieves and masters do not want to give up the power they hold though. And who bugs The Establishment more than tea party (note lowercase letters) protesters?
We have a Lincoln-in-reverse, (p)resident occupier in D.C.