Obama Turns To Income inequality, Changes Subject From ObamaCare Disaster

Political Realities ^ | 01/07/14 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

If there is one thing President Obama is good at, it is changing the subject from what we should really be discussing. Since October 2013, he has been beset by all manner of troubling press about the disastrous roll out of his signature health care reform law. To say it has been a disaster and a train wreck is the ultimate of understatements. But, as we witnessed in the presidential election of 2012, Obama is adept at getting the press and certain segments of the American people to focus on issues that he prefers, effectively changing the subject from his terrible record as President. Such is the case now, as he is starting a push to turn the attention of the American people to the tragic issue of income inequality.

Fox News - The Obama administration has set the stage for a push that could rekindle cries of class warfare -- calling for renewed long-term unemployment benefits, a minimum wage increase and a campaign against what Democrats call "income inequality."

Ahead of his multi-week, holiday vacation in Hawaii, President Obama pushed Congress to move forward on extending federal unemployment benefits that weren't included in the budget deal Senate Democrats and House Republicans struck to fund the federal government for the next two years. The White House has scheduled an East Room event on Tuesday in which the president will appear with people who lost that insurance.

Before the break, Obama called on Congress to follow the lead of 14 states that hiked their minimum wages and do the same for the federal wage.

"We know that there are airport workers, and fast-food workers, and nurse assistants, and retail salespeople who work their tails off and are still living at or barely above poverty," the president said during a Dec. 4 speech in Washington. "And that's why it's well past the time to raise a minimum wage that in real terms right now is below where it was when Harry Truman was in office."

The president went on to suggest that economic inequality, brought on partially by the current federal minimum wage, is a drag on the American way of life.

"The combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American dream, our way of life and what we stand for around the globe," the president said in the December speech.

You have to give President Obama credit. He knows exactly how he has managed to progress this far. He knows what has been successful for him as he furthered his political career and agenda and he has no problem swiveling from the issues at hand, changing the subject to economic and income inequality, populist themes that helped him win the White House.

What he is preaching to the choir comprised of his adoring media is standard liberal fare. He wants equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. He wants the American people who are still looking for a job to be dependent on the federal government for unemployment benefits, extended to the point of almost never-ending. What point is there in looking for a job when you know the federal government is going to have your back and send you a check?

I know the employment situation is not good in America. Regardless of what the unemployment rate currently sits at, it is not easy to find a job. For the federal government to be responsible for paying the unemployed, however, is ludicrous. Federal unemployment insurance was never designed to be long-term replacement for real income and that is exactly what the liberals in Washington have turned it in to.

President Obama and his liberal friends are banking on the American people turning their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration and back to the flawed idea that everyone should receive equal outcome, instead of equal opportunity. They want to convince the American people to rely on the federal government to control that outcome. The American people need to understand one crucial detail of this push. If we allow the federal government to control the outcome, it will necessarily require us to relinquish even more control of our lives to Washington. Are we willing to do that, all for the sake of fairness?

I would remind anyone who happens to read this little essay that America was not founded on fairness of outcome. Rather, it was founded on fairness and equality of opportunity. What we do with that opportunity should be up to us, not a government in Washington that has its own best interests in heart. Again, I ask. Are we willing to allow that, all for the sake of fairness? Only we can decide the answer to that question.

[LibLieSlayer]

“My muslim faith”... I didn’t say it... he did.

[ETL]

Just him sucking up to them. At heart he’s a typical elitist pseudo-intellectual Marxist who scorns religion of any type.

He also claims he’s a Christian, and that obviously isn’t true. Black Liberation Theology is NOT recognized by the Church as legit. In fact, it’s been repeatedly condemned.

[Lazamataz]