Obama’s Desperate Closing Argument: Vote For Revenge, Not For America

   Bookmark and Share   That’s the message failed President Barack Obama is sending supporters.  It is part of his class warfare election strategy that is designed to motivate his base and it is the focus of one of Mitt Romney’s latest ads.  (See the ad below)

For the last month, the closer we get to Election Day, the more desperate President Obama has gotten. In addition to the President’s noticeable lack of any references to his record and his total unwillingness to address any real issues, the President’s campaign has been interjecting nothing but meaningless juvenile jabs at Mitt Romney. From a focus on playing word games with Romney’s name, to his continued attempts to divide Americans along lines of class by trying to pit the poor against the rich, President Obama continues to look less and less presidential with the passage of each day.

His latest attempt to suggest that voters use their most basic civic responsibility to vote as a means for exacting revenge is just the latest, best example of how unpresidential Barack Obama has become. Revenge may appeal to the President’s greedy liberal base who can’t get their hands on enough taxpayer funded government handouts, but the majority of voters not in the President’s base are not seeking to use their vote as a tool for t Obama revenge. Most Americans are using their vote to preserve the principles that made our nation the greatest in the world and as a way to make it an even greater, more prosperous nation.

In the closing days of the campaign, Barack Obama’s attempt to make this election all about revenge proves that he has lost, not just the election but also the promise of hope that he rode to victory four years ago but four years later turned into hopelessness.

Bookmark and Share

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

%d bloggers like this: