Author’s Note: This article addresses seven segments into which the President has divided the electorate. It is presented in seven installments. “Installment One – Dividing by Age” published August 6, 2012. It’s also located on this website.
A Challenge to 2012 Voters – Place National Interests Ahead of Personal Interests
Installment Two – Dividing by Economic Status
Reading this article may generate various responses. Readers may be amused, annoyed, angered, enraged but none should be confused. The article isn’t politically correct. Sacred cows will not be spared. Oxen will be gored. Still, thoughtful readers may find challenging questions that – in their heart of hearts – lead them to consider whether they are (1) part of the problem (2) love their country sufficiently to become part of the solution by placing national interests ahead of personal interests.
It shouldn’t be news that one of Obama’s re-election campaign strategies is to divide the electorate into segments loyal to him and thereby conquer the Republican presidential candidate. Obama’s carefully crafted divisions thus far include: age; economic status; gender, national origin; race; religion; sexual orientation. Each segment will be addressed with questions and challenges directed to members of that segment.
Dividing by Economic Status
This topic may prove to be the most challenging – of Obama’s seven divisions of the electorate – to address. That’s not because of a lack of material chronicling Obama’s failed economic policies. Rather, material is so abundant – given Obama’s Messianic complex – a scriptural reference is fitting: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25 (RSV)
Consequently, this article addresses only these issues:
- Growing gap between poor and rich in the U.S.
- Obama & other Democrats’ complicity and duplicity in recession starting in 2008
- Job creation
- The Occupy movement
Growing gap between poor and rich in the U.S.
Obama – more accurately his political handlers – deserve considerable credit for strategic planning. About 18 months before Election Day 2012, they introduced “occupiers” in the form of “Wall Street Occupiers”. Almost simultaneously, Obama began attacking “one-percenters” for not paying their fair share of taxes. In two bold strokes, Obama’s re-election campaign created genuine class warfare pitting “the needy versus the greedy” as occupiers would have you believe.
Obama then further divided the electorate. It’s fair to give his political handlers a “plus 9” for strategic planning and execution but, as President, Obama merits a “minus 10” for intentionally dividing, rather than unifying the nation, solely for the purpose of re-election.
Much is said about the growing gap between the poor and the rich: the poor get poorer; the rich get richer. A less publicized gap is mentioned in the documentary movie “2016: Obama’s America” – the poor in the U.S. are relatively rich in comparison to the poor in many other countries. Many families – living below the U.S. poverty line – have air conditioning, cable television, computers and other electronics. Taxpayer funded entitlement programs – e.g. subsidized housing and food stamps – provide a standard of living substantially above third world country poor, some of whom lack indoor plumbing and potable water. Obama: refuses to cut entitlement spending; recently decided to waive President Clinton’s welfare reform work requirements for welfare recipients.
Unlike many of his predecessors – who viewed federal taxes and fees as the source for providing income to: fund the government; cover government functions and related expenditures – Obama views income taxes as a tool to redistribute wealth. He cloaked wealth redistribution with his call for “an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules”. Translation: occupiers – playing by Obama’s rules – aren’t getting a fair shot; while one-percenters don’t: play by Obama’s rules; do their fair share by paying “enough taxes”.
As for taxpayers doing their fair share, a 05/03/2011 report: “A new analysis by Congress’s non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation found 51% of U.S. households did not pay any federal income tax in 2009.” According to the National Taxpayer’s Union “America’s independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers”, in 2008 the latest year for which they report: top 1% of taxpayers paid 38% of federal personal income tax; top 10% paid 69.9%; top 25% paid 86.3%. Obama thinks it’s fair for 51% of taxpayers to pay no FIT but insists the top 1% must pay more than 38%.
Obama & other Democrats’ complicity and duplicity in recession starting in 2008
One of the greatest contributors to the widening gap between rich and poor – as well as shrinkage in the middle class – is the economic downturn that started in 2008 and continues in 2012 with an unemployment rate stuck above 8%. President Obama has continually, and erroneously, blamed Bush for “the economic mess I inherited”.
The facts about sub-prime mortgages – and the financial crisis President Obama claims to have inherited from President Bush – include:
- The U.S. Congress: controls the purse strings; is responsible for oversight of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac and – when taxpayer funds were involved – ACORN.
- Democrats regained control of Congress following 2006 congressional elections; they had two years to exercise prudent oversight of those three entities.
- Rather than increase oversight, Representatives Barney Frank and Maxine Waters claimed none of the three required additional oversight.
- Congressional Democrats pressured lending institutions to create loans enabling minorities and low income families to buy homes. “Home ownership is a right of all Americans regardless of creditworthiness.”
- Financial institutions – given an opportunity to exercise their creativity – responded with sub-prime mortgages.
- Being creative, not stupid, they packaged and peddled those mortgages to other financial institutions as grade-A securities.
- ACORN – a personal favorite of newly-minted Senator Obama – was lauded by Ms. Waters for facilitating low-income home ownership.
Fact: Democrats actively participated in creating the U.S. housing bubble that – when it burst – resulted in bank failures, loss of jobs and myriad other economic woes. Every time Obama denies his, and other Democrats’, participation and blames Bush, he:
- solidifies his determination to ”never let facts get in the way of a good story”;
- validates the saying: “George Washington couldn’t tell a lie; Bill Clinton can’t tell the truth; Barack Obama can’t tell the difference.” One reason Obama can’t tell the difference: he believes everything he says is true by virtue of him saying it;
- further discredits the credibility and integrity of mainstream media who, mostly, have allowed Obama to state his lie with impunity for 3.5 years.
Obama now claims he’s “the one” who can create more jobs. His record: after doling out $787 billion in stimulus spending – with Democrat majorities in the House and Senate in 2009-2010 – Obama chose not to concentrate on job creation but on his “Energy Security” and “Affordable Health Care Act” legislation to seize control of the energy and healthcare industries as he did with the automotive and financial services industries.. .
As for stimulus-spending created-jobs, the “Houston Chronicle” reported January 2010:
- “The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Obama’s stimulus plan making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion…”
- “It’s no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it’s a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.”
In 2011 Obama had an opportunity to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and add thousands of well-paying jobs and 500,000 barrels of oil daily to U.S. supplies. In November he postponed his decision choosing environmentalists – who can oppose any energy project without providing a cost-effective alternative – over job creators.
The Occupy movement
Now, it’s time to address occupiers who Obama feels aren’t getting “a fair shot”.
Mr. or Ms. Occupier, you should consider the first of two definitions of “occupation”: “An activity that serves as one’s regular source of livelihood; vocation” over your original choice: “An activity engaged in, esp. as a means of passing time.”
Here’s an interesting calculation: multiply the number of daytime hours spent to date by the total number of occupiers at all locations to determine the number of human-hours spent occupying. Consider the potential benefits if occupiers had spent that same number of hours volunteering at non-profit and charitable organizations assisting the underprivileged and truly needy.
(1) For welfare recipients, are you capable of rising above your situation and developing a work ethic to replace welfare mentality?
(2) For households who paid no FIT in 2008, are you now paying your fair share of FIT?
(3) For occupiers, will you ask Obama’s permission to absent yourself from his re-election campaign to volunteer part time at a non-profit or charitable organization?
Challenges to welfare recipients; households not paying FIT; occupiers:
Welfare recipients: although Obama is waiving work requirements, find training in an occupation that fits your talents and interests. Complete that training; start working toward a career even if it requires starting at minimum wage.
Occupiers: stop passing time, occupying space and wasting public resources; begin helping others less fortunate than you.
All three: Look beyond television sound bites and political rhetoric to determine the real issues in this election and how your vote might benefit overall U.S. national interests. Decide if you will vote for the country’s interests or for your personal benefit.
- Watch the documentary movie “2016: Obama’s America”. Decide if Obama represents your values and deserves a second term to reshape the USA.
- If you can’t watch the movie, visit this website and read former P&G VP, Lou Pritchett’s “Open Letter to President Obama”. http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp