Well, as we are all aware of by now, the latest crisis being used to spook the bejesus out of Americans is the upcoming, scary-sounding ‘fiscal cliff.’
Though the fiscal cliff may indeed have the potential to cause some uncomfortable financial consequences for the American taxpayer, let’s not kid ourselves about the true motives behind the last-minute vitriol and finger-pointing regarding this issue:
President Obama and his nefarious political cohorts are (quite effectively) trying to hang a colony of albatross around the neck of the Republican controlled House of Representatives, which has been the lone check-and-balance to his radical ideologically driven political chicanery since the 2010 elections. Obama’s official Ministry of Propaganda, better known as the main-stream media, has dutifully provided Obama with an open venue to showcase and advance his agenda of demonization, launching fresh, biased attacks against all things Republican, and running flac for ‘The Won’ when necessary. As per this issue, House Republicans have been ruthlessly slandered as inflexible and rigid, possessing no willingness to “negotiate” in good faith, or work toward what Obama, Democrats and the media define as “compromise.”
Of course, “negotiate” and “compromise” are code words for complete capitulation to Obama’s demands.
It’s a bit difficult for Republicans to ‘negotiate’ or ‘compromise’ sincerely with the other side when, just days away from the end of the Mayan calendar, er, I mean, the doom of the fiscal cliff, they arrogantly act like schoolyard bullies.
Mr. Obama’s idea of compromise is summed up neatly in this exchange with Speaker Boehner:
Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.
At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”
“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”
(Obama then threatened to take Speaker Boehner’s lunch money.)
And here’s this little gem from Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid:
“The American people I don’t think understand, the House of Representatives is operating without the House of Representatives,” Reid said. “It’s being operated with a dictatorship of the Speaker, not allowing the vast majority of the House of Representatives to get what they want.”
Reid said Boehner was more interested in keeping his job as speaker instead of putting the economy first. “Nothing can move forward in regards to our budget crisis unless Speaker Boehner and [Minority] Leader [Mitch] McConnell are willing to participate in coming up with a bipartisan plan,” Reid said. “So far, they are radio silent.”
It is so reassuring to know that we have responsible, serious, principled leadership to steer the country through the rocks and shoals of these turbulent waters.
What is particularly incredulous is that no party or administration in recent memory has given a lick about the cost of the deficit, let alone reducing it. It was not until the 2010 mid-term elections when, in a political upset of historic proportions, a majority class of Republican Congress-people were swept into office, that reducing the deficit became a valid issue. This clipped the coattails of King Barack the Dunce (So much so not even an entrenched Democratic multimillionaire fraudster like Jon Corzine from Blue Jersey could purchase his way to a second term governorship, despite three Obama campaign rallies. (As a Conservative in N.J., I will never tire of pointing that out.)), thankfully helping to keep both him and his Senate minions in check.
That being the case, the ONLY reason this administration and Democrats in power have needed to utter the words ‘reduce the deficit’ is because that election compelled them to address the issue. The people of this country realized that Obama had way too much power, so they elected a class of fiscally Conservative Republicans to counter-balance him, rightly and righteously demanding the deficit be recognized as an issue of significance.
The almost endangered ‘print media’ (Once called ‘newspapers,’ which contained actual printed material deemed essential for gathering and disseminating liberally biased information.) and cable news networks, along with their online extensions, have done nothing but goose step behind Obama’s strict talking points.
All that is ever belched up by Obama’s liberal media toadies is conjecture about whether or not the Republicans are willing to compromise to get a deal done.
In contrast, never once have I heard the words ‘Obama’ and ‘compromise’ mentioned regarding the same line of questioning.
Obama seems to believe, since he was re-elected, he is by default entitled to unilaterally enact his entire agenda without any interference from those who disagree. The media wilfully enables this fantasy, championing every aspect and angle conceivable which would bolster Obama’s clout, no matter how twisted the rational may be.
With Obama, this is another glittering example of his lust for power and his eerie penchant for narcissistic entitlement.
Now, with the country teetering on the brink of this supposed ‘Y2K12’ fiscal cliff, Obama and his ilk have cynically attempted to co-opt the issue of deficit reduction, trying to blame the same Republicans elected in 2010 of caring only of ‘protecting the rich.’
They’ve tried this by utilizing one of the oldest tricks in the Democrat playbook: Class warfare.
You know what? It has worked.
Unfortunately, the citizens of this country proved they have little or no interest in caring about things that will affect them or their children, financially or otherwise. A cursory glance at a headline or a quick glimpse of the scrolling ticker on the bottom of their new HDTV screen is enough to satiate their tiny political attention span. And that’s all they need to form an opinion and press a voting-booth button. So whether it is class envy, class warfare, or just plain shallow jealousy: It’s all the same. Pitting one group against another. Rich against poor, successful but not too successful, the middle class and millionaires, families and small businesses, Americans who make $250,000 per year, or one dollar under $250,000.
Pretty sick, disheartening stuff. The moral make-up of Obama, and the machinations of his administration, is such that it can only be described as political savagery at its worst. To the government, in this case, at this point in time, Obama’s government, money is money. No matter from where it is taken: Rich, poor, middle-class, or anyone else, it does not matter. This class warfare is just a tactic. One used quite successfully by shameless Democrats who stoke the fires of envy, blinding gullible citizens by using emotion to replace reason, for both political and monetary gain.
By any unit of rational measurement, does the federal government deserves MORE money? Why, exactly, does Obama want to increase revenue? Has he shown that he has been prudent and responsible with the trillions entrusted to him, or to his party? Has he kept his campaign promise to, as he claimed during his first campaign, “take a scalpel to the budget…line by line” to streamline the budget (Which he actually hasn’t submitted in 4 years.)?
WHAT has the federal government done to expect or earn the right to take more money from the citizens of this country? Has it been a good steward of our money, money which was earned through our work, and confiscated by an increasingly corrupt, horribly inefficient parasitic bureaucracy? Forget about from where that money originates, whether it would be taken from a CEO or a school janitor.
I just can’t get past that. The federal government has, for years, failed in its stewardship of the untold trillions it has confiscated from us all. It has squandered and spent not only that which they have taxed us, but they have borrowed trillions in our name, from our future, to purchase the halls of power for their own politically self-indulgent desires, committing countless instances of financial malfeasance.
So here’s the simple question:
Does the Government deserve to take any more money from any American?
I don’t pose that question based from an ideological stance. I am a proud, unabashed Conservative. But questions don’t need to be asked with a biased bent. And important questions don’t always need to be answered by focus-group results, manipulated graphs, or politically biased percentages.
It is a sincere, rational, and fair question that I believe should be asked by all of us. I also believe it deserves a sincere, rational, and fair answer, free from spin and political bias. That won’t happen, at least not from those who pull the levers of our purposely complex political machinery.
This simple question should stand as a bulwark against the canned answers of the puppets you see sent out and dangled on Sunday talk shows. It is not meant to elicit spin. Though a simple question, it presents a challenge. If answered truthfully, it requires only a yes or no answer. Politicians and political pundits do not like it when they are forced to commit like that. It leaves little wiggle room to provide cover when pressed for future comment or explanation. Especially when the logical, and ironically politically correct answer to the above question is “NO.” No amount of spin, political hypnosis, or ideological rhetoric can justify any other answer. Twist it all you want. Be as specific as you want. Try to explain it as equalitably or fairly as you feel.
Does the Government deserve to take any more money from any American?