The Filthy Rich
Perspective on the News
Friday, May 06, 2011
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor
''From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'' – Karl Marx
President Obama really doesn’t like “the rich” – an insulting, pejorative term as he uses it to describe those Americans whose gross income before taxes is $250,000.00 or more per year.
(He doesn’t have much use for those making more than $100,000.00 either, but his advisors tell him he should keep that to himself. (At least until after 2012).
According to the president, “the rich” are simply “fortunate” and because America “has been so good to them” they “can afford to pay a little more”. He his point by saying, “I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffet doesn’t need another tax cut.”
Is Warren Buffet just lucky? Bill Gates simply fortunate? Did America give them their fortunes? Did Obama get to be president by winning the lottery? (Well, maybe that isn't the best example)
What the president was referring to isn’t a tax cut, but rather, a tax increase on “the rich.” Not only by restoring the tax rates to the level they were before President Bush cut them ten years ago, but also by limiting or eliminating some of the itemized deductions for certain tax brackets.
“My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.”
Jeffrey Immelt is the head of the President’s Economic Advisory Board. Jeffrey Immelt is the CEO of General Electric.
“And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.”
General Electric’s accountants must be pretty expensive. Either that or being on the President’s Economic Advisory Board can help you avoid. . . ummm at 30 percent, about $3,500,000,000.00 in taxes?
GE made world-wide profits of $14.5 billion dollars last year, but had a tax liability of zero. Zero.
Rounded off, that would be roughly $0.00! Out of $14,500,000,000.00 in declared profits!
(So color me cynical)
Despite the gloomy economic outlook, however, the president was optimistic and upbeat on one point, at least. He plans to be around after 2012. Indeed, his 'plan' requires it -- re-electing him is America's "debt failsafe" -- it can't go wrong!
“But just to hold Washington – and me – accountable and make sure that the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt failsafe. If, by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy – or if Congress has failed to act – my plan will require us to come together . . .”
Translation: “So here’s the deal. Wait to the middle of my second, lame-duck term. If I haven’t completely reversed my core economic and political philosophies from what they are currently . . . well, by golly, I’ll do something about it then, you betcha.
But for now, let’s not talk about ordinary folks like you and me . . . let’s get back to the filthy rich who think that they’re gonna just get to keep their money while you and me make all the sacrifices . . .
“In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.”
But if “the $1 trillion worth of tax cuts” comes from millionaires and billionaires, then why does the threshold start somewhere around $200K? And how come most of the millionaires and billionaires in Obama’s inner circle are tax cheats?
The Wall Street Journal called it “the most dishonest speech in decades.”
“The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.” - Vladimir Illyanovich Lenin
“In its first steps the workers’ state cannot yet permit everyone to work "according to his abilities" – that is, as much as he can and wishes to – nor can it reward everyone "according to his needs", regardless of the work he does." – Leon Trotsky
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his work." – Josef Stalin
“As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate. This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well – we rightly celebrate their success. Rather, it is a basic reflection of our belief that those who have benefitted most from our way of life can afford to give a bit more back.” - Barack Hussein Obama, April 13, 2011
Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Obama . . . If you look closely, the speech wasn’t really about the budget. The budget was just the backdrop. Indeed, he said as much in his opening remarks.
“This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It's about the kind of future we want. It's about the kind of country we believe in. And that's what I want to talk about today.”
The speech was Obama channeling his political and economic mentors to explain his vision of ‘change’.
All of Obama’s proposed solutions – going back to the first hours after he took office, from the bailouts to the economic restructuring to the main provisions of the health care bill, are so structured as to require his presence in the Oval Office after 2012.
The New York Times heard the speech and claimed that the President was defending liberal principles. The piece was filled with comments about Obama’s defense of ‘progressivism.’ It makes for some fascinating reading.
If there is one word that seems to fit Obama’s vision for America more than any other, it would have to be “delusional.” It demands a sort of willful ignorance – the blog postings I noted above exhibit it in abundance.
Of all the political philosophies in history, none has been proved bankrupt more often -- or more consistently -- than Marxist-Leninist communism.
But it is a philosophy in which God is not welcome -- and that aspect alone widely appeals to the progressive left.
Marxist-Leninist communism preaches conflict between “the people” (proletariat) and those in power (the bourgeoisie) – there is no room for an Ultimate Power against Whom conflict would be useless.
So the fact that the philosophy espoused by the Marxist-Leninist Progressive Left has pretty much destroyed the dollar in less than three years means that Obama is “striking a blow against the rich” – that it makes everybody else poorer is somehow irrelevant.
“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)
Note the key elements. The deceivableness (willingness to be deceived) of unrighteousness in them that perish (the lost) because they prefer the lie, rejecting any concept of a saving God in favor of the lie that man is supreme.
Again, the point isn’t that Obama is the antichrist. The antichrist will be competent. But when he arrives on the scene, the way will have already been prepared for him.
Obama's speech demonstrated how much of the necessary advance groundwork is already in place.
|Current Article Ranking:
|Rank This Article: ||
It's an article.|
I liked it.
It's a home run!
No Forum Comments on this Article yet.
If you have already Registered, then
Login and start a discussion.