The Things Politicians Say and Do to Get Elected

Does anyone else see the insanity coming from politicians? Check out this video of Joe Biden, suddenly appearing out of no where after 3-plus years as VP …


Meanwhile, Barack Obama is hoping to enrage emotional voters into hating the wealthy because they don’t pay their fair share – or so they ALWAYS say.
Obama and company is always complaining about “unfairness” – his rhetoric has hyped up since it is election year – he wants to get the dander up with Americans who still fall for the class jealousy ploy that has worked since FDR. The revelation of what Barack Obama paid in income tax (year 2011) will be used as a political theme because his opponent, Mitt Romney, RINOelection candidate paid less income tax in 2011. It is in the forefront now that the tax form turn in period is over and Americans still can’t see how bad the system is. The Americans who get their money back in tax refunds they paid in during the previous year are less likely to care – and that number has grown over the past few decades. It is because the government gets the money elsewhere, as well as running up a national debt that seems to never decrease or even balance off each year.
Obama paid a rate of 20.5% on the gross income of $789,674 last year, reported the White House and according to Reuters. Mitt Romney paid only 15.4% on an income of $20.9 million.
You see, if the people would have favored in the primary elections, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, who paid about 30% each – this could not be used against either in the bid for presidency. But no, the American voter (those that actually get off their duff and vote in the primary elections) chose the media and political establishment choice under the guise of a “popular poll” – Romney (second establishment/media pick dropped out).
Obama and company have been spending the week railing about what is called the “Buffet Rule” where millionaires will be required to pay 30%. Such a legislation would never pass in Congress, but it is good political progressive rhetoric that Americans who fall for the class jealousy diatribe would go for.
I am sure that the Democrats are thrilled that Romney won the primary and not someone credible. They and the media will eat him alive. For you see, his lies always come to the forefront – while Obama’s lies are ignored.
That is what true constitutional conservatives fear; and besides, I am one of many who is tired of choosing between two evils. Case in point: GW Bush.
We need a president who will: (1) Stand up and protect the Constitution; (2) Stand up against Congressional business-as-usual parasites; (3) Say NO to anything that will increase Big Government intrusions as well as expenditures; (4) Say NO to any legislation that is not constitutional or part of item 3; (5) only send US armed forces when it is of national security issues – and only if Congress approves the declaration. In this way, Congress cannot, during elections, moan about a president sending troops to yet another “hot” spot. Besides, we cannot afford it. America needs to address its domestic issues, and address other nation’s issues after that is ironed out. We cannot be a world police, as so many pundits and libertarians say; however, we cannot be the only free nation left (and that isn’t going to remain if we let the progressives have their way) in the world. Trade is important. We should reorganize the way we deal with foreign policy. No more foreign nation welfare checks. Use trade as incentive where America and other nations benefit equally. But that is another issue that would take an entire book to address …
As far as this taxation rhetoric – it will make a good campaign tool – but not to savvy Americans. Here’s why …
The effective rate that Obama paid in taxes is a little over 20% – lower than Americans who earned less. In an ABC article:
He has made tax-rate fairness a campaign issue, arguing that millionaires and other very wealthy people should not pay a smaller share of their incomes in taxes than people who earn much less.
However, the author of the article, like so many others, fail to realize that the income tax is based upon percentages; which means – 20% of $750,000 is a pay-out that is more than 20% of someone who made $500,000. So, if the government must keep the tax system, then it should be a flat rate (they are talking 20% and 15%) and should be 10%. I base the percentage upon the fact that church tithes, in accordance to their doctrine and scriptures – ask a tithe of 10%. What is good for the church, is good for the government; besides income tax is not the only way to collect revenue, as We the People can tell anyone.
In addition to a flat rate, there will no longer be any deductions – which means that a simple post card form is required. No paperwork cost and no paying someone to figure out what you owe or what is owed to you. Another bonus: the government won’t keep your “tax refund” from “overpayment” for a year without paying interest. If the IRS decides that you didn’t pay enough – you pay the tax owed, plus interest AND penalty fees. A loan shark would drool over such a deal. And that brings up another issue: the IRS would no longer be required, except as a smaller agency that only does auditing. AND, the government won’t have to worry about cheaters. Everyone pays the flat rate PERCENTAGE, and that means that everyone pays their share and the more one makes the more the amount to be paid because of the percentage configuration.
Instead of tens of thousands of pages of legal language and confusion, the tax code would be written in less than 100 pages.
Corporate welfare would end because everyone pays the same flat rate – where today, some companies pay more than others, it just depends upon how much they dole out in campaign funding and lobbyists.
Of course, the tax system would have changed long before, but has been stuck thanks to those who make money off everyone’s misery: the people who “assist” you in filing each year. They are the ones who, through powerful lobby, have aided in the holding back of tax system reform.
The bottom line: Romney declared millions, while Obama declared less than a million – yet Romney paid less of a percentage. So, even following the “percentage rule” – Romney didn’t pay his fair share. His excuse: “it was legal because he made income only off of dividends, interest, and investments”. Like that makes it better? There is another issue against the present income tax system.
According to 2009 statistics …

National Taxpayers Union reported that the top 1% of income earners paid 36.7% of income taxes. The top 5% paid 58.6% taxes. And the 10% of less wealthy paid more than 70%.

Another fact: During the campaign 2008 when he ran for president, Obama swore to repeal the Bush tax cuts because they were evil and only for the rich. Looking at the facts, this isn’t so. Those making less than $20 million a year, like Romney, paid a substantial amount more and the same goes for certain companies over corporations under the protective umbrella of government.
As Mona Charen stated:
This is political demagoguery of a high order, attempting to achieve re-election by whipping up class envy and finding “kulaks” to scapegoat. While it isn’t true that the rich are not paying their fair share, it is true that you are subsidizing Warren Buffett’s Medicare. This is but one of the many injustices and inefficiencies of our current health care system that will only worsen if Obamacare is not repealed or overturned by the Supreme Court. … Those with employer provided insurance (about 80 percent of the population), likewise have no incentive to economize on health care consumption or shop for value, since someone else pays the bills. People who do not work for large employers face prohibitive prices for individual health insurance policies. This is partly due to the absence of the tax exclusion offered to employers. But two other factors also drive up the cost of individual policies and leave too many people without coverage. State-imposed mandates on insurance coverage — requiring those expensive items such as substance abuse programs, pregnancy, childbirth, and other expenses may be part of any insurance package — drive up the cost of insurance. Whereas a pure catastrophic plan could be quite inexpensive for a young, healthy purchaser, many states prevent insurance carriers from offering them. Additionally, because government is subsidizing so much of the care in the broader health marketplace, prices are higher than they would otherwise be. … Republicans missed an opportunity to reform health care in a free-market direction during the early years of this century. If the court spares us from Obamacare, they may get a rare second chance and thus avoid the rationing, crippling expense and decline in quality for which we are otherwise headed.
Mona Charen brings up an excellent point about the GOP establishment – they continually miss opportunities, mostly it seems, due to their constant willingness to “compromise” with those that have bad ideas. 
To be honest and frank, there is little difference in the way politics is handled between Democrats and Republicans today. A few amongst them fight to bring constitutionalism and limit government, but not enough. It is the establishment that has stymied the GOP success in getting true reform done.
Remember, doing the right thing is always harder than taking the easier route of doing the wrong and popular thing. It is what I have taught my son, and I hope it stuck.
You think politicians would have learned that in high school – the popular thing is not always the right one.
Just as the “popular” candidate supposedly representing conservative reformation in Washington is now erroneously running against Obama. Good luck. Obama is a better, more powerful liar. He has the media to smooth over what is said and done, and a political party that is notorious for playing with extra cards in the deck.
Also read: Did Obama Pay a Lower Rate Tax than his Secretary?  Another example that everyone should pay the same rate and leave the amount paid to the percentage of what one makes be the formula for the “wealthy to pay more”. If the government wants manage federal budget, then spending less, not high tax rates is the answer. Government policy and political ideology is what screws up the economy – government intrusion is a negative factor.
Ultimately, it is only the voters who will finally rid America of encroaching socialism. They must realize that Barack H. Obama has been tutored to be a democratic socialist – not yet the type of socialists that become communist; but nevertheless, his mentors have been Marxist followers. Then there is the factor that the Chicago Political Machine put him the Senate and the White House – which means he owes somebody and probably more than a few.
So, fellow Americans, when are you going to do something?
When are you going to be responsible and take your vote more seriously?
Will you choose the lesser of two evils? Unfortunately, once again – that is the situation. And, I keep hoping that the next election will be different and people will take primary elections more seriously and put people in Congress that are not establishment dupes or political parasites.
I can only keep hoping. 
I certainly can’t give up. 
That’s not in me or what my generation is about.

Enuff said, for now …