Skip to comments.The Bourgeoisie, Itís Their Fault, Pay Up And Save The Country
Posted on 12/11/2012 9:12:23 AM PST by Starman417
Last Week Was A Momentous Week For America
Our allies, our enemies, and many Americans were overwhelmed with emotion upon learning Anna Wintour, Vogue editor in Britain, former Assad PR gal, and Obama top bundler was being considered for an ambassadorship to London. Don't fret, the brits are underwhelmed at having an expert on designer fashions as their ambassador, and don't think for a minute that London doesn't come with Benghazi type dangers. From a State Department spokesman:
"An ambassador serves at the pleasure of the president. It's a designation of the most qualified person. But it would be erroneous to think of London as a nice, cushy, westernised post. This is a key strategic ally, so you're going to want a very seasoned person, be it on the economic or diplomatic side of things."
That quote should shame all those who find fault with those who have problems with fashion mavens being selected for key diplomatic posts. Let there be no doubt, the consideration was influenced in part by the president's wife and her keen sense of fashion awareness.
While the fashion world grabbed most of the world's attention with the prospect of having one of their leaders selected for a key diplomatic post with one of our former strongest allies, there were other issues of importance on page two.
On page two, our impending economic disaster, euphemistically termed the Fiscal Cliff, seems to be proceeding without anything being done to effectively slow its progress. In other words, our politicians seem to be in rout step like a legion of zombies as they stagger ever closer to our collective fiscal doom. Our president has his scope zeroed in on the rich or as the French and Russians called them the bourgeoisie, for they alone are responsible for our fiscal irresponsibility and therefore deserve his wrath. Strangely, many of us are asking just who those people were who could afford those $40,000 a plate campaign fund raising dinners Anna Wintour put on for the president. At least our pragmatic president has a plan, increase taxes, but only on the wealthy. It is not an original plan; no, not at all, increasing taxes has been the generic Democratic solution for every situation for decades, but no one can say he doesn't have a plan. It's a new America, where a couple making $250,000 are considered among the millionaires and billionaires according to Obama. His plan stirs up the class envy bucket and creates hatred and disunity, while slipping knives between the ribs of his opposition. However, his screw the rich plan will only yield 7 to 8 percent of the annual borrowing or about $80 billion. If we vector in increased taxation on capital gains and estates, we will be hundreds of billions shy of what we need. While most of us relax in the once hated and reviled Bush era tax cuts, the country is still swirling just above the drain of destruction, but the president has a plan.
The issue of spending can't be brought to the table; however, there are only two ways to bring down the destructive debt: increasing taxes and reducing spending. If we reduce spending, it is as if we are interfering with the president's redistribution of wealth, so reductions in spending, except for defense, will never be considered or on the negotiating table.
The president figures he needs another $50 billion to jump start the economy and award contracts and loans to his bundlers, presumably for more Green Energy debacles that netted zero benefit for dollars invested, but why is he asking for only a hundredth as much this time. Is the economy ready to rebound or is he feeling the austerity belt tightening? Judging from the previous stimulus accomplishments, congress might do better by awarding pay offs to the Obama bundlers and forget the stimulus pipe dreams.
The country is consumed with the thought of "pay your fair share," but half the country pays no tax at all. Somehow, this inequity is calculated into redistribution rather than paying a fair share. It is becoming harder to justify a fair share for only half the people in the country.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...