Nothing politicians say is intended to improve the lives of Americans. What might be considered harsh by some, this observation is supported by many examples and the current presidential campaign is no exception.

Presidential primary campaigns are composed of healthy servings of red meat for the most ardent party loyalists. Candidates that can’t consolidate support from their respective bases don’t get nominated; generally. Money can often substitute for genuine support, but that’s the subject of another article.

Barack Obama

If you’re a political junky you’ve probably noticed how insincere candidates appear when they cater to their base; this is especially true with Mitt Romney. No one really believes that Romney is a staunch Conservative, so when he used the phrase, “I was a severely conservative Republican governor,” it was equal parts contorted use of the English language and humorously contrived; almost akin to Barack Obama comparing his policies to Ronald Reagan.

Mitt Romney is a tailor-made opponent for President Obama. Romney screams ‘Richie Rich,’ despite the fact he acquired his wealth through hard work. Romney simply can’t shake the perception of trust fund baby. Can Romney be able to connect with the average man? If Mitt’s to beat Obama he’ll need to find a way to lose the golden cufflinks and become comfortable with factory workers in Ohio.

Obama, on the other hand, preaches fairness, economic equality and “a balanced approach.” The president is playing towards the 99 percent against the Mitt Romney one percent. The big difference between Obama and Romney is that Obama doesn’t have to play to his base; he actually believes in his soul that American is an innately unfair place. While some may call Obama’s vision of the future socialism, and there’s a strong support for that view, it is the polar opposite of Mitt Romney’s vision, whether you label him a moderate or not.

This first week of the presidential campaign Obama was once again lecturing the nation on the evil rich, taking on the role of leader of the Occupy forces. The president reinforced his failed economic policies by advocating that the ultra-rich are skirting their societal responsibilities by using tax policies to pay a smaller portion of their income in taxes than the average man. For the next six plus months the Liberals vaunted “Buffet Rule” will be front and center in the Democrat’s talking points.

The proposed Buffett Rule, another shot at the failed Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) aimed at those who make more than a million dollars a year through investments, assumes that the nation’s financial woes are somehow tied to the rich using loop-holes to avoid paying their “fair share.”
Dr. Charles Krauthammer, respected Pulitzer Prize–winning syndicated columnist, political commentator, and physician addressing the Lindau Symposium for Gustavus Adolphus College on the Buffet Rule said, “To be charitable, it’s a fraud and a deception. If you collected the tax for the next 250 years, it wouldn’t cover Obama’s deficit from 2011 alone. That’s to tell you how trivial the amount of money.”

The entire premise of the Buffet Rule is based on Warren Buffett, billionaire investor, paying a smaller portion of his income in taxes than his secretary. While this is true, it’s very misleading. Nearly all of Buffet’s income comes from capital gains which are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. What you’ll never hear the president mention is that Buffet paid over $7 million in capital gains taxes in 2011.

Dr. Krauthammer said, “It’s really counter-productive to double the capital gains tax. It makes us uncompetitive in the world. Capital is going to go elsewhere and with that capital will go employment, will go growth and expansion. I think it’s a counterproductive tax economically, I think Obama actually knows that it will do nothing about the debt and that it is simply a way to pit the 99 percent against the one percent in a way Obama thinks is going to score him points for election day. In other words, cynicism squared.”

Never in the history of this nation has raising taxes led to more revenue being taken in by the government or more jobs being created. As Dr. Krauthammer said, when you attack the generation of capital you only encourage investment in other nations; precisely what we don’t need when the nation is suffering with an anemic economy and rising government debts.

None of this matters to Mr. Obama. The Buffet Rule isn’t intended to bring in more money, even though it’s being touted as a way to address the debt, it’s intended to draw clear lines between the haves and have-nots because the president is counting on division as his path to victory. Obama doesn’t care how polarized the electorate becomes as long as he comes out on top. Wasn’t this the man that told us he envisioned

You can post this "Obama tries to sell the Buffet Rule" image that's above on your blog/forum using following codes:

Website Code

Forum Code