Just what is behind Obama's "Tax the Wealthy" plan?

Just what is behind Obama's "Tax the Wealthy" plan? First and foremost it is a re-election campaign. Obama was elected president by blaming George W.Bush for everything wrong in the world and this election is no different Obama needs an enemy he can demonize, preferably one who can't fight back. Which is why the rich are such an easy target. It's easy to make people who don't have much believe that an Evil "Other" is the source of their plight. It worked for the Nazi's it worked for Stalin in the Ukraine, It worked for Mao and his Cultural Revolution, It worked for Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, Rwanda, Serbia... Don't get me wrong Obama's plan is not the beginning of a Genocide it's just a means to an end. In this case Re-Election. But it has to be more than that right? It can't be just to get elected, There must be some policy imitative behind it right? Correct! It's about separating Americans from their money. Not just "Rich" Americans but ALL Americans. In the 2008 campaign and earlier Obama stated he wanted Americans to pay more for energy, More in taxes for wealth transfer programs, More for autos, etc etc. And by using taxation and legislation like Cap & Trade he could achieve those goals. The dirty little secret about raising Taxes is that there is no amount you could raise taxes and balance the budget. The game is rigged. Baseline Budgeting assures that every year expenditures increase regardless of need. Even if your tax increases generate enough to pay for this year, next year you will need more. Your Economy must grow at a Voracious pace but it can't because you keep siphoning much need capital out of the economy for government. (something Western Europe has experienced for 20 years) I remember back in the early 2000's the French were dancing in the streets because they had achieved ZERO GDP growth! Zero was a big milestone because for the previous 12 or 13 years they had been in NEGATIVE GDP growth. Even sadder than the notion of taxing ourselves into prosperity is the idea that we can just "Tax the Rich" The sad reality is if you took every penny the top 1% earned next year you could cover about 25% of what we borrowed this year. Increasing taxes on the top 1% from 35% to 39% gets you something like 90 billion a year. Which works out to about 5.4% of what we borrowed this year. I know what you're saying, Obama has to know this so what is his plan? His plan is the other Dirty Little Secret. Raise EVERYONE'S taxes. It's the game! When Congress sets itself to raising taxes on day one they realize that no amount of accounting tricks or gimmicks will get the CBO to state that 90 Billion is really 1.65 Trillion. And the CBO will fall for anything, They will let you count borrowed money as revenue, they will let you count money twice, they will even let you count revenue from taxes based on unrealistic or even fantasy GDP growth estimates. None of this will get 5.4% looking even close to 100% So what will congress do? Raise Everybody's Taxes! Congress has already decided to do the unpopular thing and raise taxes. This decision alone has already assured that some congress men and women won't be back next term. Congress has decided they need the icky tasting medicine, they might as well swallow it. So they start moving down the tax brackets and usually they decide to stop about one tax bracket above your baby sitter. It's still not enough money but with some tricks and gimmicks and promises to cut "Next Year" and when all is said and done "Taxing the Rich" has elevated the kid who washes dishes at the IHOP to "wealthy" status, Sans all that troublesome privilege and prestige that goes along with being wealthy, Besides Kid, the speeding tickets you would get in your Bugatti Veyron would bleed your bank acct. dry.

Selecting candidates by the lowest common denominator

Selecting candidates by the lowest common denominator or "Any one of the Republicans would be a better president than Obama"

How many times in the last month have you heard that phrase from a Republican? 10? 20? 100? To quote the eloquent Cynthia Leathers (Cat lady Extrordinaire) "I'd vote for a turnip with a face painted on it before I'd vote for Obama" But is that what we really want? the least desirable candidate? I mean a turnip would probably be a better president than Obama but I think we need to shoot a little higher.

Call me crazy but I think we should be using this time to try and weed out the poor candidates and select the best candidate and not just sit around and wait to be presented with the worst possible candidate we all can agree upon. The time is quickly approaching where we need to cut some dead wood from the tree. The discussion between candidates needs to go beyond petty sniping and soundbites to actual cold hard facts. What are you going to do? Give us specifics not broad generalities.

That being said Some candidates have to go, and the sooner the better. I like Michele Bachmann I don't care that she got John Wayne's birthplace wrong, but she jumped the crazy fence when she suggested someones child became mentally retarded from a vaccine. The Guardisil vaccine is an injection Lets not make it out to be a gynecological exam on the 50 yard line half time at the Superbowl.

Ron Paul. Ron is a nice guy with some great ideas but he hangs around with too many flakes and nutters. In addition to his good ideas he's offered an amazing array insane ideas. I would need 18 months and a grant from the Library Of Congress to document all the crazy that Ron has spewed just since January 2011. Not the least of which is the notion that Iran with nuclear weapons is no big deal.

Newt Gingrich. Surely he is a smart man, so why does he so often say some of the stupidist things? The Ryan plan may not have been perfect but it was the first and most likely to succeed plan for fiscal solvency that has been offered in the last 40 years. I can only postulate that Newt called the Ryan plan "Right Wing Social Engineering" in an effort to ingratiate himself to the liberal media elite. I have to question the competency of someone who seeks adulation from people who think Obama is doing a good job.

Rick Santorum, Sorry Rick, Guardisil vaccine is not going to make America's 12 year old girls sexually active.

Huntsman? Tap tap tap, Is this on?

Johnson?


Allowing weak candidates to continue will only result in resentment by supporters when their candidate is forced out in the primary process. In addition it will allow a failing candidate to triangulate himself into a better position by denying other viable candidates a win. Remember in 2008, Huckabee stayed in to split off votes from Romney insuring a McCain win.

My point is this; Sure any of these candidates would be better than Obama, but right now I am concerned about finding the one who would be better than all the other Republicans

Does Obama want the USSC to Kill Obamacare? Maybe

Does Obama want the USSC to overturn Obamacare?

The other day the Obama Administration said it would not seek an
appeal en mass to the 11th circuit ruling on Obamacare but rather it
would petition the USSC to decide the case. This action more or less
fast tracks the decision with a USSC decision likely before next
June.Conventional wisdom had the Obama Admin slow walking this through
the courts hopping to delay a USSC decision until after the election
possibily until the law began to take effect.

Whether or not the court would throw out the law is any ones
guess.Constitutional scholar's on both sides of the law have made
valid claims. But what has never been in dispute by any rational
person is Obamacare's unpopularity with the American people The
numbers have been bad since passage and have slowly gotten worse.

The Republicans undoubtedly will try to hang Obamacare around the
president's neck as reckless lawmaking and a job killer in an economy
that most think has never come out of recession. So what can the
president do to blunt this arrow and minimize this avenue of attack by
the GOP? He can cause the USSC to kill the law. Putting up weak
defense and pressuring Kagen to recuse herself could insure a defeat.

Obama could kill the law himself if he were to sign the Republicans
repeal bill, (providing it could make it through the senate), That
however would be an admission of failure of Gaussian proportions. it
would kill off support from his base faster than announcing U.S. was
going to invade the Palestinian territories.

However if the supreme court were to throw out the law it removes that
arrow from the GOP's quiver and Obama remains blameless. But here is
the silver lining to that storm cloud. Obama would now have an enemy
to run against. Demonizing the Teaparty hasn't worked, Mostly due to
the fact that you can't put a face on the Teaparty. Furthermore when
you try to demonize the tea party defenders from all across the
political spectrum have been popping up. Attacking the Teaparty in a
national election campaign is an un-winnable game of Whack-A-Mole. But
the USSC is a different story. They are just 9 people and really only
4 of them are the "enemy" to Obama. It would be easy to say Roberts,
Allito, Scallia and Thomas took away your healthcare.

The Campaign can now be that Obama needs to be re-elected so he can
assure the next president won't appoint more justices along their
political ideology. The jackpot is that the USSC will not respond.
Obama's perfect enemy, an enemy that won't fight back.

To sum it up, Losing Obamacare in the USSC means Obama doesn't have to
spend the campaign defending an unpopular law, Obama can then decry
the injustice. Obama can continue to make the claims of law being paid
for, reducing the deficit and creating creating jobs and what are the
republicans going to do? Attack a law that isn't even a law any
longer? But here is the real kick in the ass, Obama can run on the
platform that he will fix health care. It's 2008 all over again.