Obama Plays Class Warfare With Bush Era Tax Cuts and Proposes a Litany of Loose Ends, Contradictions and Lies

 Bookmark and Share  In an announcement from the East Room of the White House, President Obama masterfully meshed his campaign strategy with economic policy by reapplying his class warfare tactics to the now annual debate on whether or not to extend the so-called Bush era tax cuts.  The President’s carefully crafted approach to the debate tries to paint the picture of a leader who is being logical, reasoned, and bi-partisan but beneath the superficial rhetoric of the President’s wording lies a litany of loose ends, contradictions, and lies.

According to the President;

“The Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, and I don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, so we should all agree to extend the tax cut for the middle class. Let’s agree to do what we agree on,”

On the surface, the statement sounds quite rational.  In a nation of voters who usually protest  against the lack of compromise in Washington, and the seeming lack of willingness by Republicans and Democrats to work together, President Obama’s appeal  sounds like a step in the right direction.  His wording sets the stage for the President to portray himself as willing to work with both sides, while casting an image of Republicans as rigidly inflexible, uncooperative, extremists who are out of touch with mainstream Americans as they protect the interests of wealthy Americans.

The President’s approach also dovetails quite well with his campaign’s overriding goal of trying to paint Republican standard bearer Mitt Romney as an out of touch, rich businessman.

If left unchallenged, the framework which the President has created for this debate will work well for him and his Party, but if challenged properly, Americans should easily be able to understand that the President’s framework is little more than a tangled web of contradictions and incongruent thoughts.

To begin, it is glaringly obvious that the President and his Party initiate this whole debate by conceding to Republicans that higher taxes are not good, especially during times of national economic hardship.  But at the same time that the President admits that taxes depress our economy, he also tries to argue that they only hurt when the middle class pay them.  It is a contradiction he makes when he argues that those making less than $250,000 a year will be hurt by a failure to extend the Bush tax cuts but that the same will not apply to those who make more than $250,000 a year.  He then further adds that extending the same tax cuts extensions for the rich are “least likely to promote growth”.

Now if logic plays a part here, even the most lobotomized liberal should be able to see how illogical the President’s claim is.

Why would taxing those who spend the most, invest the most and create the most jobs not have an adverse effect on the economy?  Is the President trying to contend that by increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 a year or more, we will be creating incentives for those same people to spend more, hire more, and invest more?  Where is the logic in that?

The point is that there is no logic in the President’s argument.  Unless of course you are a liberal living in a world that denies the laws of nature and defies everything from gravity, to the free market principles that were a part of the founding of this nation.

For decades now, liberals have mocked the Reagan-Kemp-Laffer economic theory of trickle down economics.  Despite evidence to the contrary, the left contends that wealth does not trickle down.  Instead they exist in a parallel universe where according to them,  the laws of gravity are reversed and that what goes down must come up.  In the alternative reality of a utopian liberal universe, the poor do not accumulate wealth from the rich, the rich become wealthier off of the poor.   But I have yet to see how that actually works.  In the reality I am forced to live in, the Warren Buffetts of the world do not go to poor and ask them for a loans or investments.   In my world, it is just the opposite.

But  for the President and his fellow leftists, admitting that wealth trickles down would be lethal to their political viability.  Such an admission would undercut the potency of the liberal mission to apply the socialist belief that it is the job of the government  is to spread the wealth.

Yet in a day and age when rhetoric trumps reality and facts are merely a set of words which individuals choose to believe or not, President Obama has set himself up on a political stage that he hopes will portray himself as a bipartisan leader who is looking out for the average working American.  But he does so by contradicting himself every step of the way.

In 2008 he promised to be a unifying force in politics.  But ever since taking office in 2009 he has been trying to conquer Republicans by dividing Americans along lines of class.  Despite the fact that The top 2 percent of taxpayers provide approximately 46 percent of all federal income and the that the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers—representing nearly 70 million tax returns—provided 3 percent of all federal income taxes, President Obama and his liberal minions continue to run with the phrase that the rich must pay their share.    Yet with the wealthiest 2% of Americans paying nearly half of the taxes in America, the facts indicate that the rich are paying much more than their share.  But again, those numbers undermine the liberal thought process and it takes the legs out from under the President’s class warfare strategy.

Still, the President’s capacity for framing the debate on the Bush tax cuts was a good attempt to continue to frame the 2012 election in a way that is most favorable to him.  It is easy to exploit the less noble aspects of human nature, especially during tough times.  It is easier to convince people that others are to blame for their lot in life than it is to convince those same people that they have to take responsibility for their own lot life.  And that is the type of campaign President Obama is running.  In his campaign and in his Administration the President tries to claim the high ground.  He tries to claim a willingness to work with Republicans.  Yet such things as his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, was hardly an example of bipartisanship.  Our President tires to claim that he wants to work with Republicans on creating jobs, yet more than 30 House Republicans jobs bills remain dead because of the President’s refusal to force the liberal led senate to act upon them.

Now based upon the ludicrous belief that those making more than $250,000 have  no impact on the economy, the President attempts to frame his proposal to increase taxes on only those who he deems to be rich, as a compromise.

Well if the President really wants to compromise, I suggest that he do so in a meaningful.  A way that actually uses numbers and facts as a basis for compromise.  So how about we do this?

By refusing to extend the Bush era tax cuts to those making more than $250,000 a year, the President will save what amounts to the cost of operating the federal government for 8 days.  So I suggest that we base our compromise on the fact that even Democrats agree that raising taxes are bad and instead of raising them on anyone, we close all non-essential services of the federal government down for 8 days every year.  No foul no harm.  Now that’s a compromise.

Bookmark and Share

4 Responses

  1. Wouldn’t we win in the long run if we agree with Obama on the $250,000 cap for extending tax cuts and focus on trying to make changes to the tax code that seperate small business owners from those who are being paid salaries in excess of $250,000 per year. I agree we need small business to prosper as they provide the vast majority of jobs in the US. However, if you are getting paid this much you are living well above “the average american wage earner” and you should be paying more than me. Let’s start by making small business prove their cost of doing business when they are dba’s and S corporations. In this day and age no one should be filing business and personal retruns together. If your a business file that way and pay taxes on all profits-period. There are way too many ways for them to take advantage of the laws and take all the money out for themselves rather than paying a reasonable salary to employees and a reasonable amount in taxes before taking profits out (big business too). Why not focus on the root of the problems and not allow ourselves to be dragged down and made to look greedy and out of touch dealing with the result of the real problem. Fix the tax code.

    • No we wouldn’t win in the long run if we agree with Obama on the $250,000 cap for extending tax cuts and focus on trying to make changes to the tax code that seperate small business owners from those who are being paid salaries in excess of $250,000 per year.

      You begin your thought process from the lliberal misconception that that the money we are talking about is the government’s money to begin with. You are under the misconception that we the people have to justify that which is ours ———- the money we make and earn.

      You are also under the misconception that people who earn more than you or I, don’t pay more in taxes than you or I. They do, in fgac t they pay much more than you or I.

      You are also falsely assuming that the Bush Tax cuts and tax reform are the same issue and in doing so you suggest thatr we should believe the President and do what he wants now so that we can address tax reform later. Where is the guarantee that he will do so later? After spending more than three and a half without attempting to reform our tax in any significant way, why should anyone expect him to do so at any point in the futrure?

      You write “Let’s start by making small business prove their cost of doing business when they are dba’s and S corporations” I suggest that we start making big government prove that it can manage that which is suppose to before we grant the right to take more of our own money and before we grant government any more over finances and lives.

      I agree with you that we need tax reform. But I disagree with your advice to go along with the President and raise taxes on some but not others because yoiu don’t think that others pay enough taxes. Those “others” pay far more than their so-called fair share already. I also disagree with you on your suggestion that the issue of tax reform should be lumped together with the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts. They are two seperate issues which the President is trying to lump together as part of deceitful strategy desined at getting him increased taxes in the immediate future and wiggle room to avoid addressing real tax reform in the distant future.

      The bottom line is that we win if we deny the President the opportunity to raise taxes on those who we are relying upon to create jobs and interject money in to our stagnant economy. We win if we deny the government the ability to spend more of our money and we will win if we eventually tackle true tax reform and adopt a flat tax—- one rate for one nation. A rate which will allow all Americans to pay the same percentage but still allows the wealthiest among us to pay more than the poorest among us.

  2. Hopefully, it will be over with very soon and America can get back to jobs growth and prosperity. If it doesn’t happen…………..another recession or depression will be in order.


    The truth about how Barack Obama shipped the “Recovery” overseas.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: