So Why Aren’t Progressives Called Regressives?

As long as there is Free Speech, I hope that Jim continues to write stories like this and as long as he does, I will do what I can to help spread the word.

Great Work Jim.

1 Dragon

Canada Free Press

By Jim Campbell  Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Have we had enough of the politics of Hope and Change?  Has anybody bothered to explain to the less fortunate among us that the Democrat Party and it’s promises of woefully designed social programs ultimately hurts the voting block that they need to remain in office?

I will…

On the campaign trail, how many times did we hear candidate Barack Obama say the following? I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.

Wow, that sounds great, particularly if your desire is to further divide, blame the rich and marginalize segments of our society.  Think the evil rich!  You know, those who don’t pay their fair share, another liberal lie. It seems those promises, like most campaign promises, went up in smoke.

The largest federal increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite President Obama’s promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. The poor tend to smoke, more so than the ‘rich’ thus, a regressive tax on the poor.  Once in office,  President Obama signed a law raising the federal tobacco tax on a pack of cigarettes to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.

Barack Obama said in the campaign that Americans could have both—a broad boost in affordable health insurance for the nation without raising taxes on anyone but the rich. What has resulted is health insurance premiums are already rising, employers are cutting jobs in anticipation of the onerous burden to be placed on them while they implement the forced mandates of Obama Care.

Again on the campaign trail, “Listen now,” candidate Obama said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, “I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.” (Another lie as all the tax increase above and below will prove.)

The middle class hasn’t begun to see the effect of the tyranny about to be brought upon them and the rest of America when the ” President Bush’s Tax Cuts” expire and President Obama’s new tax policies begin to take place in early 2011.

It is reasonable to conclude, using the failed economic policies of past Democratic presidents, think President Lyndon B. Johnson and President Jimmy Carter in recent history, many more jobs will be lost.  How does that help the poor? Tending to be less educated will they not be among the first to be terminated?

Do you recall the irony of President Obama’s pitch for Cap and Trade legislation while claiming energy prices will skyrocket?

The Democrats Energy tax creates tax hikes on every single American, thus once again another regressive tax on the less fortunate and the poor.

Let’s not forget the pending “soda tax” to control childhood obesity. What comes next the food police?
Then legislation in the works for an increased alcohol tax at the federal level?  Who will be effected more by an extra ten cents for a bottle of Bud, the ‘rich’ or the ‘poor’?

Legislation is currently on the drawing boards to increase the gas tax 10- 15 cents a gallon.  This will help the poor exactly how?

In closing, let us not forget that a Value Added Tax (VAT) is most likely headed for America.

Again, President Obama has said repeatedly that he will not raise taxes on families and businesses making less than $250,000. Of course the devil is in the details. Paul Volcker mentioned that new taxes, and possibly a VAT, will be needed to rein in large deficits. We are being led to believe that a VAT will generate more tax revenue, arguing that it’s more efficient because it doesn’t tax savings and investment. Do the poor and less fortunate tend to have savings and investments? Doubtfully.

Let us never forget that today’s horrible deficits represent the out-of-control spending by elected officials from both parties that have for years spent our tax dollars on failed programs. These failed programs, largely designed to help the “poor” have actually hurt them, forcing them to accept a dependency mentality and a belief system that big government programs and the Liberal Democratic party is looking out for them.  Truthfully, it’s the opposite. They depend upon the ignorant and uneducated among us for their votes.

The wars on housing, poverty, ( note that President Obama has increased spending in the 2011 budget on these failed programs to historic levels.  The Wars on drugs and teen pregnancy, all designed with our tax dollars to help the poor, when in reality they are harmed greatly by them. Think of living in government housing projects, among gang members, drug addicts, prostitutes, with virtually all of them carrying a gun (many of which have been bulldozed).

Would you want to raise a family there or would a private sector program, Habitat for Humanity, that uses the potential buyers sweat labor as equity, for part of his down payment along with those that help build the new home.

The war on drugs is a fiasco at best,  teen pregnancy is still on the rise and poverty is still rampant throughout America.

As candidate Obama’s favorite pastor has said, “The chickens have come home to roost.”  Sadly, the poor and less fortunate will be burdened disproportionately with increased taxes at a time in American history when they can least afford it.

The answers involve looking to the successes of recent history. Presidents JFK, Reagan, Bush, all cut taxes across the board, providing increased revenue and jobs with sustained growth in the private sector. (Source: CBO, decreasing taxes provides more revenue for federal government.)

In this sense, the Republican party represents the party of progress for the poor and less fortunate among us and they are welcomed to our party. The Republican party is not the party of “No” it must become the party of No More Wasteful spending which hurts all Americans, especially the poor. The Democratic party is the party of “No you can’t” “We can do it better for you,” of course we will use other peoples’ money.

I rejected liberal hyperbole in my early twenties, saw it for the fraud it was and have been a staunch advocate of fiscal conservatism to this day.  Jim’s Law: Profits employ – Taxes Destroy.

Random thoughts while observing the passing charade, I’m J.C.

Source:

One response to “So Why Aren’t Progressives Called Regressives?

  1. everything they are doing is about this international think tanks mission regarding climate change , and our health care and cap and trade legislation going through congress ;
    http://www.worldshiftnetwork.org/declaration/index.html

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s