Friday, October 31, 2008

Now the leftists are saying $120,000 is filthy rich.

Barack Obama is already setting the stage for his Marxist-based plan to redefine America through the confiscation of the income of some and its redistribution -- according to the whims of Obama and his supporters -- to others.

Obama promised at first only to steal the money of people making over $250,000 in one year. In other speeches he then dropped that amount to just $200,000. A few days later, Obama's running mate declared that the confiscation would begin with people making $150,000 in a single twelve month period and today Obama surrogate Bill Richardson lowered the figure again, now stating that "the rich" who Obama plans to punish for their success is anyone who dares to exceed $120,000 in earned income in the period of a year.

Now, the reality is that a good many people who make $120,000 in a year only make that amount after a long career of working, at first, for minimum wage, than making their way slowly up the ladder as their skills and knowledge increase and their worth to an employer increases. When these people finally enter the realm of what leftists call (for the moment) "the rich" this is the payoff of a lifetime of work, sacrifice, compromise, thrift and more. It is money that is to be used for the rest of their lives. When the multi-millionaires in Congress -- people like Obama (whose home alone is worth many millions, and was purchased only after a quid pro quo with convicted mobster "Tony" Rezko) -- declare that, at the end of their careers, anyone making a little over $100,000 dollars will have their money confiscated at a higher rate, they are condemning hard working and good people to welfare as they won't be able to take care of themselves in their retirement.

Ah, but so is the plan. When people are on welfare, they become de facto wards of the state. Just as parents can say to their kids "so long as you live under my roof you'll live by my rules," Obama knows that the more people he can force onto the government dole the more control he can have over their lives, behaviors and choices.


potemkin said...

LOL...try this if you want to scare people, goofball.

Shout NAZI.

Anonymous said...

See, that's the problem with this country nowadays - the bar is set so incredibly low. In order to be a socialist, all you have to do is say that the top tax rate should return to what it was under Ronald Reagan.

jmb said...

anon...that would be adjusted for inflation, right???

opus said...

Call it the final stake in the myth and destructive path of the Reagan era. On the evening of October 31, Ron Reagan -- son of the Gipper -- officially endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Now, we've got an Eisenhower, a Goldwater, an Eisenhower and a Reagan for Obama.

Biggest crash of a disastrous political movement since the last Reich fell.

tahooo much said...

And ANOTHER nail in the Reagan/McCain coffin!!!

Former Reagan CHIEF of STAFF Ken Duberstein told CNN this week he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Lorione said...

Wait- the very left-leaning Ron Reagan is endorsing BHO? The world is shocked!

(And when the Hitler/3rd Reich comparisons come out, you can always tell they're out of intelligent arguments!)

The Witty Patriot said...

You know Evan, it doesn't matter if Obama drops it to $60,000. These people are hypnotized by this man's great oratories. I'd say he has some inside knowledge on how to brainwash people. I imagine him watching hours of Hitler and learning how to persuade people to give their aledgiance to him. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

Why else would American give up so many freedoms for such little return? Let's just suppose for a minute that Obama is telling the truth (which he's not) let's say he truly is going to give a tax break to the middle class. I am the middle class. We make less than $60,000 a year.

I am not willing to vote for a president that has a proven record of supporting gun bans. I don't own a gun, but I like the freedom of knowing that if I need one I can get one. If guns are illegal-the criminals will still get them. It's the law abiding citizen that will suffer.

He has promised to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" into law as one of his very first acts as president which for those of you who haven't read the bill- know would force all doctors to perform abortions even if it goes against their morals- and remember..doctors take an oath to save an preserve life and this is exactly the opposite. I am happy that at this point partial birth abortion is banned. To deliver a baby all the way to the head and then crush it's skull while it is dangling there alive is inhumane and murder! We treat dogs better than that! And our tax dollars will be paying for it. But more importantly this is another way for the gov't to take away the rights of doctors.

Obama and the Democrats plan is to eventually switch us over to universal health care. They know that this new plan of Obama's will encourage employers to drop coverage and just pay the gov't it's dues to take care of the health care of it's employees. Why is everyone so eager to turn their health over to the gov't?

And of course, taxing the wealthy ($120,000 a year) to give to the "middle class" (which appearently has changed to max of $119k) makes the middle class more dependent on the gov't too.

Legalizing gay marriage will force Evangelical pastors to marry them. A pastor can be sued in a state (or country) if gay marraige is legalized. It's already happening. That infringes on the rights of pastors to decide how he conducts his ministry. my pastor won't even marry a straight couple unless you take a pre-marriage course and he sits down and talks with you and feels that it would be a good decision to perform your ceremony.

I can't believe people can't see all of this. I would benefit from Obama's plan, (if it were really going to happen the way he says) but I don't want the money! Money that someone else earned is not mine to take.

Why wouldn't Obama cut gov't spending over taxing people? That's just absurd! We don't need another museum or bike trail when the economy is in the crapper, but that's what your tax dollars will be paying for. More earmarks! And then they'll throw us a bone by giving us a tiny tax break or a stimulus check. Who wants to be the government's dog?

If I get a stimulus check I'm sending it to the Republican party. I am serious! Every check I get from the gov't for now on is going right to the Republicans. I urge other Republicans to do the same. If you've lived this long without a stimulus check you can live without it.

My liberties and freedoms are worth more to me than a bone from the government.

Lorione said...

You know what it boils down to for me? I love the constitution. It puts pretty strict limits on the powers the federal government is supposed to have. Minting money, defending us against foreign and domestic enemies, etc. I will be the first to admit that BOTH parties have strayed from that. But in my mind, knowing how much power comes with money, I choose to vote for whichever candidate is less likely to take my money to fund their programs. Also, why is it that any time a cause is considered honorable and worthy, that must translate into federally funding it? The suggestion is that being against federal funding for any program means one is against the program in principal? Frankly, I think the farther removed any program gets from local control and funding, the more poorly run it becomes. There are tons of worthy causes I support locally, but would be furious if the federal government wanted to use my taxes to pay for them.

come moron, here moron said...

I love reading wingbat boilerplate as translated by morons programmed to love having the GOP pick their pockets.

It's most watching a docudrama of Jonestown.

There will always be maroons like this. The left needs only to program a very few of them for their side to hold the country for 25 years.

In fact, the less hipmotize ones have already come over. Bye bye fourth reich. (oh, that's so unintegilent.)

lorione said...

Well, uh, maaaaaaaaaaaybe Duberstein and the dozens of other big time GOPigs were a surprise...little bit...tiny tiny bit.

the truth is leaking out... said...

Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all...

engels said...

turns out everyone is FOR redistribution...

thanx for the great adverstising McCain campaign.

must read for wingbats said...

Sanity Returns:

McCain's Big Backfire: Majority of Americans Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth
By Alexander Zaitchik

John McCain and Joe the Plumber are campaigning for Barack Obama, and they don't even know it. The more McCain has ramped up his attacks on Obama as a "spreader of wealth," the more the country has lined up behind the Democrat's plan to spread the wealth. If McCain's economic agenda was a gun and his attacks on Obama's agenda the bullets, the old soldier would have shot both his feet clean off a long time ago.

Watching the GOP's coordinated if increasingly delirious attacks on Obama's economic plan, it's clear that the party is even further out of touch with the America of 2008 than previously imagined. After eight years of establishing and then extending America's lead as the most unequal of all industrialized countries, Republicans thought they could deflect a national groundswell of righteous anger by dusting off and hurling every insult in the conservative arsenal, including old favorites "extremist," "radical," "Marxist" and "socialist." One suspects they are saving "anarchist" and "Hessian" for McCain's last-gasp speech on Monday.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the Republican hammer-and-sickle-themed haunted house: Nobody showed. The McCain campaign's attempts to smear Obama as a Trojan donkey for socialistic un-Americanism have belly-flopped, if not backfired. Obama has not only maintained a stable lead under the Republican barrage, he has increased his positives in the traditionally Republican territory of taxes. The final national polls before Tuesday all show a national hunger for national wealth redistribution downward. An Ipsos/McClatchy poll finds that likely voters prefer Obama's tax plan to McCain's by 8 points. Pew says Obama added to his edge on taxes and the economy between mid-September and mid-October by 6 points, jumping from 44 to 39 earlier to 50 to 35. On Oct. 30, Gallup released results showing Americans favor Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping 58-to-37 margin.

It appears the nation's sanity and sense of fairness has reasserted itself to wipe the floor with condescending GOP red-baiting.

It hasn't hurt that the GOP attacks have been absurd on their face. A 3-point increase in the top marginal income tax rate to 39 percent is not easily morphed into the face of Pol Pot. For much of the 20th century, the top income tax rate in the United States slid between 50 percent and 90 percent, peaking at 94 percent during the final two years of World War II. Most Americans would agree that the mid-century rates were excessive, but support for some kind of progressive tax curve remains widespread. Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore ran winning campaigns promising to raise taxes on the rich.

"The public has always supported moderately progressive taxation, so I don't think McCain's pitch had much resonance unless he could convince people that Obama would raise their taxes," says Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Obama inoculated himself against this attack by saying that he would cut taxes for 95 percent of the public. Basically, McCain was trying to make things up, and most people didn't believe him."

Charges of socialism are especially discordant coming from the McCain campaign. The top marginal income tax rate held steady at 50 percent for five years under McCain's hero, Ronald Reagan. His other hero, Teddy Roosevelt, was a fierce and early booster for federal income and estate taxes. And Sarah Palin? It wouldn't be all that surprising to see her turn up at a commemoration of this year's 70th anniversary of the Fourth International. As Hendrik Hertzberg noted in one of many recent New Yorker pieces debunking the newest GOP attack line, the redistributive principle is practiced with particular gusto in Palin's Alaska, where the governor spreads the oil wealth like creamy butter around the state's absorbent white bread. "One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor," notes Hertzberg, "is that she added an extra $1,200 to this year's (government) check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269." Earlier this summer, Palin boasted to journalist Philip Gourevitch, "Alaskans collectively own the resources. We share in the wealth."

Like Alaskans, we're all socialist now, to an extent, and have been for a long time. It's just a question of daring to speak the adjective's name, which happens to describe hugely popular programs like Social Security and Medicare. Watching McCain's socialist attack line flop, it's tempting to think that the country is edging closer to the day when the word, stripped of its Cold War baggage, no longer has the power to frighten Ohio. Another element is the further eclipse of the culture war by economics. As the country's shifting demographics grow over the divides opened up during the 1960s and '70s, attempts to bundle pinko economics with fears of godless agents of chaos become increasingly meaningless.

The Right is aware of and worried about this growing de-contextualization of the word "socialism." The counterrevolution against the New Deal was aided by the presence of the Soviet Union as a running counterpoint. But it's now almost 20 years after 1989. A generation has matured that never soaked up any of the old propaganda. This generation has studied abroad and knows you can Super-size it in Sweden. It has no memory of "Better Dead Than Red" and can't imagine an elderly British logician making international headlines for saying he'd rather crawl to Moscow on his hands and knees than die in a nuclear war. Conservatives worry about this group much as arms controllers worry that kids today don't understand the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. The right's fright over the post-Cold War generation's immunity to cries of "socialism!" was expressed clearly in an Oct. 27 editorial in the Investor's Business Daily titled "Defining Problems With Socialism for the Post-Cold War Generation."

"John McCain has finally called Barack Obama's agenda by its proper name," it begins. "But if he assumes voters understand what he means when he uses the word 'socialism,' he assumes too much. Sadly, most people under 60 in this country went to schools and universities where socialism isn't considered a bad thing."

Actually, those are two distinct groups -- those who don't understand the word or its gradations, and those who do and wouldn't mind living under most of them. What they have in common is that together they constitute a future United States where the word "socialist" carries an ever-weakening stigma.

Whether we choose to reclaim or dispense with the word, its days as a conversation stopper appear to be over. Over the last eight years, 90 percent of the new income generated has accrued to the top 10 percent, while average family incomes have dropped $2,000. These numbers have engendered bitterness on top of anxiety that has shifted the economic debate. If Democrats get a chance to seek forceful redress in the coming years, Republicans are sure to call Obama a socialist and much else besides. But that's OK. Tuesday's election is going to show that when people are hurting, they don't mind a little "socialism" -- just as long as it's pointed their way.

John said...

By lowering the bar (several times now) for what qualifies one to be a "wealthy American," Obama has already raised taxes just on the campaign trail.

:-D Shea said...

Hey Cutters & Pasters, if you can't be convinced to just use a link could you have the courtesy of providing the link along with what you paste. It's nice to get the context of the information you've taken the time to share with us. FYI, Alexander Zaitchik IS an actual writer don't ya know!

Tracy said...

So much for McCain's one-day bounce:

"Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: One Day Is Not A Trend: Obama Holds His Lead

Obama 49.5%, McCain 43.8%

UTICA, New York -- After a strong day of polling for Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday, Democrat Barack Obama experienced a strong single day of polling on Saturday, retaining a 5.7 point advantage that is right at the edge of the margin of error of the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll. The race has remained remarkably stable down the stretch, this three-day rolling average poll shows."