Advertisements

Obama’s War on Senior Citizens

With increased awareness of the deterioration of the Social Security system, no one is sure how much longer the program can remain solvent, or at least appear to be solvent.  After President Obama enjoyed his $4.1 million worth of taxpayer funded vacations to Hawaii and teed off on the golf course for the 90th time of his three year presidency, he finds himself back in the humble abode that is the White House.

With both chambers of Congress recently agreeing to a payroll tax cut extension, they’ve decided that they will continue their fervent efforts to bankrupt the Social Security system.  By keeping the individual contributions two percentage points lower for another two months, the Democrats, along with some RINOs, have accomplished yet another small piece of Obama’s regressive agenda.

This entire holiday season, the president has championed this tax cut by urging Congress to pass the bill. What he doesn’t want you to know, however, is that this is not really a tax cut, but a reduction in the amount of your earnings that you would contribute to Social Security.  What has been touted as a tax cut by the Obama administration is simply a raid of the Social Security fund.  By letting American workers continue to keep an extra $19 a week over the next two months, the administration has deprived the Social Security trust fund of roughly $25 billion in new contributions. For a program that currently operates in the red, $25 billion could go a long way.

Much criticism has been focused on the House Republicans, led primarily by the Tea Party coalition, because they continually voted down the bill.  They were grossly accused of being hypocritical for opposing a “tax cut,” while the pinnacle of their agenda has historically centered around lowering taxes.  However, like most Americans, they were able to discern between what is right politically and what is right morally.

If we accept the Leftist rhetoric that the system survives through payroll contributions, how could we vote to prevent that money from making its way into the system? Since the Democrats set up the Social Security system in the 1930’s, they have done absolutely nothing to prevent its implosion. The great irony is that conservative Republicans are trying to save Social Security.

President Obama is no stranger to stealing from the social programs that millions of Americans subsist on.  In funding his landmark legislation affectionately known as Obamacare, he stole $500 billion from Medicare.  Now he is revisiting the same tactics as before, but instead with Social Security.  He thinks Americans are too ignorant to see what he is doing; perhaps his respective constituents are just that, but we will not be fooled.  This president is merely playing politics by ensuring that each prospective voter gets a little extra cash in their pocket right before the election, even if that means disregarding seniors.  His campaign team has already admitted to writing off the white middle-class vote; perhaps he is adding senior citizens to that list as well.

While Obama deserves the majority of the blame, I have to give credit where credit is due; the House, namely Speaker John Boehner, retains weak leadership as well.  The Speaker pretends to stand for conservative principles, but he always folds by cutting a deal with the Democrats.  Furthermore, he is a weak negotiator.  The only good aspect conservatives received in the deal was an expedited decision on the Keystone XL pipeline that would have brought oil from Canada to Texas, thus decreasing our dependency on oil from the Middle East.  This project would have created many  jobs, but our president has demonstrated his strong disapproval of the endeavor.  I can’t imagine that even Obama, the self-proclaimed fourth greatest president, would stand in the way of such a lucrative job-creating venture.

If the President were serious about cutting taxes, he would reduce income tax rates across the board.  Slashing income taxes would allow American workers to keep more of their money without bankrupting any social programs.  Democrats will never do this, however, because they need as much money as possible to fund their leviathan.  Their goal is to continually expand government; reducing income rates reduces revenue, and that would require wise management of a smaller amount of money.  However, as we have experienced during the Reagan and Bush administrations, tax cuts can actually increase revenue.  During the height of the Bush tax cuts in 2007, revenue from taxes was at an all time high, even when adjusting for inflation.

We need an elimination of the Marxist policies that have infiltrated the White House. Tax cuts are needed, but not of the payroll variety. Tens of millions of senior citizens depend on Social Security for their very survival, and we cannot let them down by stealing their money to fund Obama’s sound bites.  Furthermore, we cannot continue to let the Left continue to drive us down the road to serfdom.

Jeffrey Max :: Texas Wesleyan University :: Ft. Worth, Texas :: @JeffreyMaxxx

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Alejandro Hukill says:

    it’s unfortunate that you, jeff max, are allowed to spout this kind of nonsense. granted, i am a leftist, but still, i would’ve expected better from you. i guess i am a bad judge of character. to each their own, so no hard feelings, but i think you have a very negative and skewed view of the world and that’s not cool. in my eyes, you are either for humanity, or not a part of it. i hope you find your way back.

  2. Alejandro, long time no talk! No hard feelings taken. If someone is offended by me expressing my opinion, well, I don’t really care much. If pointing out simple facts is having a skewed view of the world, then call me the most skewed of them all. I know it is uncomfortable to share these things, but they need to be pointed out because the liberal media won’t do so. You are not alone, though. All of the other Marxists will be on here soon to say similar things about my article. I’ll be sure to work a little harder at my job, so you don’t have to. Best wishes.

  3. Jeffrey, your use of labeling even before someone posts comments is troubling. I would not appreciate being called such a thing under any circumstances. Surely someone might disagree with you without such a label?
    I liked your article, overall, but there is one small part you screwed up. The Keystone pipeline is not going to bring oil to the US. The oil is slated to be exported. Why don’t you already know this? True, lots of people don’t, as evidenced by the comment boards on various news stories. I get very upset with the state of our country, but when someone such as you, who should know the facts, continues to spread untruths about such things, well, like I said, your article is a great one, except for this small part.
    You owe it to yourself and TCC’s readers to read this article with its numerous source links.
    Tar sands oil and Keystone XL’s dirty secret
    Industry privately admits its pipeline would make oil neither safer nor cheaper for the US. The president must pick the alternative
    By Bernie Sanders

    great comments after the article
    http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/tar-sands-oil-and-keystone-xls-dirty-secret
    Please read the article, regardless of what you think of MM. That is just where the article is posted. The article is full of links to sources. Here is some bio on Bernie Sanders:
    Bernie Sanders was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 after serving 16 years in the House of Representatives. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history. Born in Brooklyn, Bernie was the younger of two sons in a modest-income family. After graduation from the University of Chicago in 1964, he moved to the Green Mountain State. Early in his career, Sanders was director of the American People’s Historical Society. Elected Mayor of Burlington by 12 votes in 1981, he served four terms. Before his 1990 election as Vermont’s at-large member in Congress, Sanders lectured at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and at Hamilton College in upstate New York.
    The Almanac of American Politics has called Sanders a “practical’ and “successful legislator.” He has focused on the shrinking middle class and widening income gap in America that is greater than at any time since the Great Depression. Other priorities include reversing global warming, universal health care, fair trade policies, supporting veterans and preserving family farms. He serves on five Senate committees: Budget; Veterans; Energy; Environment; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Born: Sept. 8, 1941, New York, N.Y.
    Jeffrey, after reading that, I have to admit I for one don’t agree with him on several subjects, universal health care as one of them. But as you grow, you will come to realize that the world is not black and white, and people are complicated. They have good parts and bad parts. Focusing on parts is infantile, when you have to see the big picture to fully understand anything successfully.
    For example, our country and its current administration’s policies get me upset nearly every day, but I still love America, because I am patriotic and have studied history, real history, not what the powers that be want us to believe is history.
    As I stated at the outset, your article is very good and points out many problems with the O. administration’s policies. I just want you to understand all of which you speak.

  4. The cuts shouldn’t come from the seniors who have worked hard all their life. They have earned that social security check! Let’s get to work America and do our part!!!! Great article and good for you for writing it!

  5. There’s still hope. From gas buddy:
    Despite the politics, all is not lost on Keystone project
    http://blog.gasbuddy.com/posts/Despite-the-politics-all-is-not-lost-on-Keystone-project/1715-480264-753.aspx

    While the “shovel ready” Keystone project is stalled, some in Congress are already working to circumvent the decision and its inherent delays.

    Additionally, TransCanada said it is now considering moving forward by building the U.S. portions of the Keystone XL pipeline and later seeking approval of the critical Alberta link to circumvent the Obama Administration’s rejection of the $7 billion project.

    TransCanada may develop a segment between the over-supplied oil hub of Cushing, Oklahoma and Gulf Coast refineries in Texas, as well as a longer line fom Montana to the Gulf Coast, according to the Calgary Herald.

    The Herald reminds us that “There is no requirement for a presidential permit to lay pipe anywhere in the U.S. providing the line doesn’t exend across th border into Canada.” TransCanada would later apply for a presidential permit to link the line with the oil sands in Alberta and complete the Keystone XL pipeline as originally envisioned.

    TransCanada’s CEO Russ Girling also said that the new application for presidential approval would include the detour in Nebraska around ecologically sensitive areas that has already been approved by the Nebraska legislature.

    Where there’s a will, there’s a way. You can bet on it, especially when there’s $7 billion at stake.

  6. Not a bad article! The Keystone pipeline raises some suspicions with me. Why not build a refinery in ND and then just ship the oil products around the nation. Why pipe it to Texas and then refine and ship? Doesn’t make much sense UNLESS they plan on shipping the oil elsewhere.

  7. jeffreymax says:

    Keith, the Marxist label was not exclusive to ALL commenters, but nonetheless, a good variety of them would even consider themselves Marxists. If they self-identify with such a term, then that is their prerogative.

    As far as the oil pipeline, I will definitely have to do a bit more research in regards to the logistics of that operation. I am on my phone right now, but will certainly read your articles when I get to a computer. However, the main focus of the article was directed around the payroll tax cut extension. I find it appalling that the legislature has decided that this is the best tax cut option available. This applies to both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans were even asking for an entire year extension (which is what Obama originally asked for). A cut in the income tax rate would be a better option all around, in my opinion, for the reasons stated in my article.

    If the oil is being shipped elsewhere, then that would certainly make more sense as to why the President recently denied the request. On the surface, it would seem that only a fool would deny building a pipeline that would create thousands of jobs to bring oil from one of our closest allies into the United States. There are literally thousands upon thousands of pipelines in this country, so the environmental argument is really out the door. In fact, I could argue that if the environmentalists truly cared about the environment, they would rather see the oil stay here where we have stricter regulations than having it sent to China where they have almost no environmental regulations.

    Again, I’ll read your articles when I get to a computer. Thanks for commenting.

  8. Scott, of course they plan to ship the oil somewhere else. North Dakota is currently a law-less wasteland that could use the tax base from such industry to pay the salary of police officers and teachers. Totally off subject, but just check out the rise in the crime rate, the rise in property rental, the lack of resources for all the oil workers that have bombarded NoDak. Sure, there are loads of jobs there, but you are seriously taking your life in your own hands when you move there. Do not take your women or children it is not safe.

  9. reluctantzealot says:

    Had to comment. Good article. Another aspect of this that no one seems willing to talk about or investigate is the linking of Social Security Funding (to pay for the tax holiday) to failed FannieMae & FreddieMac. Bad enough to rob SS, bad enough to pass the theft onto working class kids in the future. but now Fannie&Freddie are untouchable by those who would dismantle the failed private mortgage companies. This is wrong on so many levels and yet no one says anything because they are scared they won’t get to keep their $40 Obama’s WH tweeted into a greedy fever.

  10. Gary London says:

    Do any of you people really think it makes any difference? Whether a Democrat or Republican sits in the White House, the agenda is the same, simply because the people making the real decisions are not elected officials. You will know if and when a people’s President is ever elected, because he will almost certainly meet an untimely death.

What Do You Think?

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

%d bloggers like this: