President Barack Hussein Obama will have a very difficult time running on his record of accomplishments that has resulted in massive unemployment, stagnant income growth, a record number of people on food stamps, and a gargantuan level of debt that Americans will be paying off for decades to come, if ever. So, recognizing that fact, he has turned to another political ploy he favors: class warfare. He will further this ploy by campaigning in 2012 on the idea that he will bring "fairness" to struggling Americans. It's not "fair" that some people are "rich." Fairness means whatever Obama says it means, and the MSM goes along with his definition. There is ample evidence about what it means to Barack Obama: taking money from one group of Americans and giving it to another on a scale never before seen in America.
We, the taxpayers have heard rare flashes of truth when he was without his teleprompter. There was his "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber. There was his 2008 declaration that he would hike capital gain taxes, even if it failed to raise revenues because of fairness.He was, and is, willing to trade job losses to advance his fairness ideology. As president, again without teleprompter, he said, "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money." At what point would Obama have cut off Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and others who have done so much to make our nation prosper? But who cares about the economy when there is fairness at stake?
So how has/will Obama fan the flames of class warfare? Here are two ways, I'm sure you can think of others.
- Bill Clinton was prodded by a Republican House to reform welfare, and it worked. However, Barack Obama is all about change, and he has been busy rolling back welfare reform. We have all seen the MSM headlines that America's poverty rate has risen sharply. However the Census Bureau has concocted a new definition of poverty that threw millions of people unknowingly into those ranks. The Census Bureau discovered that almost half the population is living in "near poverty" conditions if you define near poverty as an income roughly equal to the median income. That means that, by definition, nearly half the population will always be poor or near poor, regardless of any changes in actual living standards. By suggesting that many more Americans are poor or near poor, Obama can cite the Census Bureau in order to generate political pressure to raise taxes and expand the welfare state, thus ensuring greater wealth transfer, er, I mean fairness.
- In 2009, Obama appointed Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) as head of the Department of Commerce, under which the Census Bureau falls. Immediately, the Congressional Black Caucus and The National Association of Latino Officials complained. They wanted, and Obama tried, to get the Census Bureau directly under him so he could decide what it said or declared. A professional at the Census Bureau said about Obama's move: "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement. And it's called politics...." In an effort to have the Census Bureau do his bidding, he tried to usurp our Constitution and have it under him. What other Census Bureau discoveries await us?
- Obama has already permanently increased welfare spending by nearly a third, from $522 billion to $697 billion. This year (2012), the government will spend more than $900 billion on means-tested aid, providing cash, food, housing, medical care and social services to poor and low income persons. And this figure does not include Social Security, Medicare or unemployment insurance. This welfare spending comes to around $9,000 for each person in the lowest income third of the population. And the new poverty measure is propaganda to raise the figure further.
- A huge shift in wealth will happen courtesy of Obamacare. Taxes will greatly increase to pay for the expansion of medical care to people Obama considers underserved by the medical care industry. Senator Max Baucus (D-ID), who was instrumental in having Obamacare shoved down our throats, admitted that the goal of Obamacare was redistribution of wealth. Baucus spoke from the floor of the Senate when he declared that the bill was "an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans ... This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."
Of course, the federal government already runs a massively redistributionist system of taxes and benefits. The top 1 percent earns about 17 percent of all income and pays about 37% of all income taxes. But, as Obama has said many times, politics is about rewarding friends (like Senator Harry Reid [D-NV] and Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]) and punishing enemies.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
(yawn)
2 - zingzing
"as Obama has said many times, politics is about rewarding friends [...] and punishing enemies."
when did he say that and what was the context?
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Oh, c'mon, zing - don't you know that in Warren World context does not matter as long as he can find something, anything to get the guy out of office?
4 - Glenn Contrarian
And for Warren -
I gave you an answer here concerning Christianity and LGBT's.
5 - Warren Beatty
Re: Comment #2, zing, Technically, you are correct, he never spoke those words (unless you want to count this instance). But in the "actions speak louder than words" department, please refer to these sources: 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Re: Comment #3, Glenn, you want context? Try reading some of the sources provided in my post. Or are we going to remain in "Glenn - ignore what I don't like - World?"
6 - Roger B
Priceless!
"Technically, you are correct, he never spoke those words"
A mere technicality.
Why does this outfit allow this guy to publish? Desperation?
7 - Warren Beatty
Re: comment #6, Roger B, are we supposed to ignore his actions because he never (in a context that you will like) spoke those actual words? Did you look at ANY of the sources I provided? Who is being "technical" now? Does the word "hypocrite" come to mind?
8 - Clavos
Why does this outfit allow this guy to publish?
Why do we allow you to comment?
Something to do with the Constitution, probably...
9 - Igor
What are we to think, then, when Warren attributes a statement to someone? Should we assume he's lying, or that it is our duty to go and check his statement out? If the latter, It's too much work and I won't do it. Will you?
10 - Warren Beatty
OK, all, I made a mistake and zingzing, in comment #2 called me on it. I said in my post, "But, as Obama has said many times, politics is about rewarding friends (like Senator Harry Reid [D-NV] and Representative Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]) and punishing enemies." Change the word "said" to "done," then refer to the citations I provided in comment #5. Changing that one word in no way alters the message of the post, or what Obama has done.
11 - Warren Beatty
And, zingzing, I thank you for carefully reading my post. I will be more careful in the future choose my words.
12 - El Bicho
"Something to do with the Constitution, probably..."
Probably not, as I am sure Mistah Kurtz will tell you.
13 - Igor
Apparently, Warren cannot be believed.
14 - Clavos
@#12:
Never heard of him...
15 - Dr Dreadful
Barack Obama is all about change, and he has been busy rolling back welfare reform.
How?
Other than "redefining poverty", which is a bit like claiming that the White House has reduced NASA's budget by redefining the altitude at which outer space begins.
16 - Warren Beatty
Re: comment #15 , Dr. Dreadful, in response to the question you raise, please see these citations: 1, 2, and 3. Enough? Do these citations answer your question?
Regarding the redefinition of "poverty," "The Obama administration announced Tuesday a new formula that will take into account a wider range of factors in determining who is poor." So a formula is being used rather than some arbitrary method, as you imply by your NASA remark.
But the question is WHY is he doing it? The answer can be found here and here.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
You're wasting your breath. Warren's so convinced that every little thing that Obama (or any liberal, for that matter) does is all part of a vast conspiracy where we'll take away all their guns, force them to learn French, point our gay-rays at them, and force them into same-sex marriage with brown people.
18 - Igor
#16-Warren, your citations are lousy. All they are is old hysterical diatribes without facts, figures or argumentation against Obama claiming that he's increasing welfare. Heritage Foundation, Washington Times and ProteanWhatever aren't reliable sources, they're just propaganda outlets for the Far Right.
If that's where you get your ideas I can see why you'd say the bogus things you say.
Warren, you're in danger of being dismissed as a crank.
19 - Steve
It will be an interesting campaign with both groups having a lot of money, the Republicans running a better candidate, and Obama having a record like you state.
20 - El Bicho
"the Republicans running a better candidate"
Thanks for the laugh
21 - Glenn Contrarian
"the Republicans running a better candidate"????
In order to do so, they would need to find someone who accepts scientific fact over Republican dogma, who accepts historical fact over Republican fairy-tale, and who is courageous enough to stand up for brown people when his fellow candidates begin race-baiting.
No, I don't see any viable GOP candidates on the horizon.
22 - Clavos
..they would need to find someone who accepts scientific fact over Republican dogma
Hmm. Good point, Glenn.
So let's also rule out people who accept religious dogma over scientific evidence, which includes everyone who believes in a "god" or other similar mythical character.
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
You forget - or perhaps you didn't know - that I found a way to reconcile the two. I cannot deny the science...but I could not deny what I felt to be religious evidence, either. If I had not found a way to reconcile the two, I'd probably be an atheist.
As a result, your retort goes nowhere. As it is, though, you support the same side as do the creationists, the AGW deniers, the ones who claim that God doesn't want women to be leaders (as one of Santorum's staffers said yesterday), the supporters of child labor, the white supremacists, and those who oppose rights for LGBT's.
Lay down with dogs, and you get up with fleas, Clavos. Do you really want to be on the same side as the above idiots?
24 - Clavos
"Religious evidence" is an oxymoron -- like "military intelligence."
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
That's your opinion. And you well know the falsity of calling 'military intelligence' an oxymoron, of pretending that it's fact rather than a simple joke - either that, or your cherished cynicism has caused you to be much more ignorant than you imagine.