Perhaps a Simpler View?

The partisan divide seems
worse than it has ever been.

There are two sets of philosophies in America whose differences have widened along the years. One side says that Conservatism is best for people and, quite naturally, the other says it's the Liberal ideology that will save us all and make everyone happy. Since most people now involved in the debate rely on a decidedly left leaning media -- or comedy shows like Jon Stewart -- for their opinions on these matters, I thought it might be time to frame the debate in simpler terms.

I will therefore relate my personal situation as an example, and let the readers decide if they are more like me, or more like Ms. "Obamaphone", the lady splashed all over the social media during the 2012 election season.

For starters, I am Joe Citizen. That is to say, I live paycheck to paycheck like many people. I am not rich, nor have I ever been rich. (Side note: I speak of financial wealth only. As far as my family is concerned -- healthy and happy -- I consider myself to be the wealthiest man on Earth). I have never envied those who are financially successful in a substantive way, meaning I never wanted someone to take their money and give me some. I never wanted anything from the government until they begin paying back the money they took from me all of my working years. And all I ever really wanted was a chance to work and make a decent living.

Somewhere along the line, the brains of roughly half of America have become cross-wired. These people now believe that the fruits of the labor of others somehow are owed to them because it's just not fair if someone else works hard enough to "make it". These people began complaining about unfair taxation, never bothering to learn and understand the tax system, and our increasingly left-leaning government has only stoked that class envy.

The Socialist economic philosophy
perfectly illustrated. 

During a 1963 speech, President John F. Kennedy used the phrase, "a rising tide lifts all boats". Originating with the New England Council, the phrase was also used during the years of President Ronald Reagan to defend his tax cuts. The idea is that if the economy is steadily improving, everyone will benefit to varying degrees. The Socialist (and Liberal) philosophy has been demonstrated throughout time to be to figuratively drain the water from the ocean so that all boats sit equally on the bottom. Equal misery for all.

From the time I started working (1976) until 2010, I have not needed the government's help to get by, even during a 9 week period of unemployment in the late '90's. I worked part time in the interim, and eventually found full time employment while maintaining the part time job for a number of years.

What do we have today? A part time is the best most can do, and as Obamacare grows in coming years, part time will become more common and exclusive to most. I have had to rely on my meager 401k for loans and withdrawals to survive, hoping that I have not made a grave error upon retirement. This is the Liberal dream which was supposed to be our savior.

The exam at the end here will be for any readers -- and I realize that most are fellow Conservatives -- to compare your own realty with the fiction of Liberalism. Consider also, providing you are doing ok in these tumultuous times, how those who are close to you are faring. Obama is not good for America, folks. At least not the America I remember.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama's Tax Plan And The U.S.S.A.

In the final Presidential debate on Wednesday night from Hofstra University in New York, John McCain touched on something that almost went unnoticed. When discussing tax cuts, Obama engaged in not only some revisionist speech, re-stating in different terms things he had said as recently as a few days before, but he also made claims that are disconcerting, at best, and frightening at worst. McCain astutely pointed out at one point that one has to listen very carefully to what Obama says because his smooth eloquence has an hypnotic effect that causes the actual message to become secondary. Very well said, indeed.

Obama continually makes the claim that his plan is to cut taxes for ninety-five percent of working Americans, a nice message that becomes all the more palatable when delivered in such soothing tones as Obama's. People believe it. Consider, however, that roughly forty percent of working Americans pay no income taxes and one has to ask the question; will those forty percent thus receive a free check from an Obama government? That sounds suspiciously like a Marxist philosophy, taking money from upper income folks and "spreading the wealth".

Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe The Plumber", was told flat out by Obama that spreading the wealth is good for everybody. Obama also did not refute Joe's assertion that he was going to be taxed at a higher rate if he bought the plumbing business where he has been employed. He acknowledged that Joe would be taxed at a higher rate while saying that he "didn't want to punish him".

Yet, at the debate, Obama tried to spin what he said to Joe into something else. He claimed that what he actually told Joe was that he needed tax cuts five years ago, when he was struggling to scrape up the money to buy the business. Again, not true, as evidenced by the fact that now, five years later, Joe is ready to buy the business without any help from an Obama "tax cut". To make matters worse, Obama may stand in the way of Joe seeing his dream come to fruition.

Combined with Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, saying that they want to take money and put it into the pockets of middle class Americans, I can see no other moniker than the U.S.S.A. in our future. Welfare has been a target of politicians on both sides of the aisle in the past decade, but now Obama wants to pass go and begin taxing upper income people and issuing checks to lower income people? It's not even welfare. It's redistribution of wealth.

No thank you.

Sphere: Related Content