According to the Clinton campaign website:
Hillary is committed to restoring basic fairness in our tax code and ensuring that the wealthiest Americans and large corporations pay their fair share, while providing tax relief to working families…
This propaganda… er Clinton campaign statement, reminded me of a talk from years ago, 1992 to be exact. A very close friend, Subodh, a naturalized American citizen born in India, was speaking with family friends at a party. The men he was talking with were professionals, doctors, engineers, accountants, and the had one thing in common. They were strong Clinton supporters. Bill Clinton that is.
They were convinced a Clinton administration would make "rich" people pay more in taxes. Again, these were educated, intelligent, successful businessmen and they had bought the lie about "paying their fair share." Subodh warned them it would come back to bite them and the gentleman would regret it.
Fast forward six months later and my friend Subodh is at another family party, same people, same discussion, taxes, and they were "shocked, shocked I say," to find they were rich and would be paying their "fair share," and they are none too happy about it. And Subodh just smiled, reminding them, "I warned you!"
Regressives (I prefer to call leftists what they are -- what they want does not work, has never worked nor will it ever work) have a mindset, and it doesn't change. The New York Times has has great influence on policy makers and other "public servants". Consider this articlefrom the October 22nd edition:
For the first time in decades, the wealthy are set to deliver a landslide victory for a Democratic presidential candidate.
While polling data on the rich is imprecise given their small population, polls of the top-earning households favor Hillary Clinton over Donald J. Trump two to one. The July Affluent Barometer survey by Ipsos found that among voters earning more than $100,000 a year -- roughly the top 25 percent of households -- 45 percent said they planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton, while 28 percent planned to vote for Mr. Trump. The rest were undecided or planned to vote for another candidate.
The spread was even wider among the highest earners. For those earning $250,000 or more -- roughly the top 5 percent of households -- 53 percent planned to vote for Mrs. Clinton while 25 percent favored Mr. Trump. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus four points…
It's interesting that the "wealthy" in the minds of the NY Times are not multimillionaires or people with "non-profits" tax dodges, but people who just top six figures in income. A salary of $100,000 a year, what is that in "real life?" It's a senior teacher at many public schools in this nation, such as the New York public school system, or theirprincipals or other administrative staff. Or many college professors at major universities such as Harvard, the University of Texas, or the California Institute of Technology. Is a nurse "wealthy?" A nurse practitioner can easily make 100K. Are they "rich?"
Can you put police and firefighters up there with the Gates' and Buffets'? Many cops and firemen make over 100K a year with overtime and side jobs, and often it's needed. A cop making 100K in Houston, Dallas or Phoenix is doing much better than a cop in San Francisco, Los Angles, New York, or Chicago.
Also, the article is somewhat vague on households or individuals. A household making 100K a year, what is that in real life? A nurse and a teacher. A fireman working a side job with a stay at home wife/mother raising the kids. That's a cop and a nurse, with the cop working the night shift and the nurse working the evening shift, hoping to save up for a down payment on a house, to pay off student loans or a car payment, or perhaps start a family in a couple of years. Not exactly the type of people jetting up to Martha's Vineyard to write five digit checks to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
As I recall, then-VP Al Gore said you were a "millionaire" if you made $250,000 for four years, and therefore you are "rich," The propaganda wing of the regressives is in full swing to insure Democratic victory next month. And you can rest assured a President Mrs. Bill Clinton, early in her term, will say, "...And I've worked harder than I've ever worked in my life to meet that goal," but she cannot cut the deficit (read, increase taxes one dollar for "deficit reduction," spend five dollars on anything but, and demand pay your "fair share") and we must ask the "wealthy" to contribute more.
Congratulation Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class, you're wealthy. And the administration of President Mrs. Bill Clinton will remind you of that, every April 15th!
Michael A. Thiac is a police patrol sergeant and a retired Army intelligence officer. When not patrolling the streets, he can be found on A Cop's Watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment