At the Huffington Post (Arianna Nation), there is a story concerning “class conflict awareness.” This is odd for three reasons. First, there is no real “class” structure in America. There is income divides, but America, unlike Europe of old, does not have a system in place where by if you are born into a lower class you remain in a lower class your whole life. In America, anyone born in poverty has a real opportunity to rise up and out of it and move into the middle and upper echelons. There are countless, and many told, stories to prove this. Secondly, the Arianna Nation, in its broad, but failed, attempt to sock it to conservatives once against falls flat on its own butt. The reason for the income divide in America has everything to do with liberalism and the policies and legislation liberals have been able to pass which have crippled business in America and have resulted in America’s economy tanking, job loss, home foreclosures, the high rate of unemployment, etc. Thirdly, “class conflict awareness” is simply another term, a euphemism, describing jealousy. Poor people are jealous of the rich. What else is new?
Significantly more Americans see “very strong” or “strong” class conflict between the rich and poor, according to a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center. The results show that Americans think that conflicts between the rich and poor are stronger than immigrant and native born, black and white and young and old.
In other words, poor Americans who have embraced liberalism, have championed liberalism, have gone to bat and cheer-leaded for liberalism, have bought into liberalism all their lives – have been deceived and screwed by liberalism, which was liberalism’s intention all along. Being poor and liberal is a deadly combination. How many poor people who follow liberalism religiously ever get out of poverty?
Poor people are inundated with liberal propaganda telling them their poverty is a result of the “rich getting richer” off their backs. But what liberalism never explains to poor Americans is how they can reverse their poverty status and become, if not wealthy, then wealthier. That, of course, would be counter productive to liberalism since liberalism can only exist so long as a substantial number and percentage of people remain convinced their poverty is a result of the “evil rich” and conservatives who, purportedly, but not in actuality, don’t care about the poor.
Liberalism is the “Jack the Ripper” of economics. Does anyone really believe that a business owner who has had their taxes and their tax rate raised by liberal politicians, and is threatened with having those taxes raised higher, is going say, “Well, now that I have less money for my business and myself, and will soon have even less than that, I can pay my employees more,”? Is that how business works?
Ladies and gentlemen, if you did not already know, (and unfortunately most liberals still refuse to accept this reality) no business can function properly and effectively the higher its taxes are. Yet, liberals demand more from business owners under the guise and smoke screen of “paying their fair share”. It’s a canard. It’s a type of psychological warfare liberal politicians use to keep their base, composed mostly of poor Americans, energized and brainwashed, and to psychologically stun and debilitate business owners, shaming them into thinking one’s poverty is their, the business owner’s, fault.
The ongoing economic recession also may have magnified class differences as income inequality has risen.
The economic crash America has suffered, and continues to endure, was designed by liberal politicians. We have higher unemployment now, over 8%, than when Obama took office. The reason for this is because during Obama’s first two years, the Democrat Party held control over both the House and the Senate, which allowed them to pass their liberal, anti-business, anti-capitalist agenda. Had McCain won the Presidency, and/or had Republicans won the House and Senate, we would not have been in this economic mess because Republicans would have blocked Democrats from instigating destructive legislation, such as TARP, and other socialistic programs, and they would have blocked the Democrats from dramatically raising the debt ceiling.
Had Republicans retained the White House, had they won the House and Senate, this recession would have been over by now and unemployment, which was just over 7% in January 2009, would have steady fallen as conservatives began passing meaningful business tax cuts, cutting meaningless regulations, cutting out unnecessary government programs which only purpose is to keep the poor, poor, and cutting the size and scope of government itself. We would not be over 15 trillion dollars in debt if Republicans were in control. Why are the poor not as outraged as they ought to be that Barack Obama has spent so many trillions of dollars and provided them with little to nothing to show for it? If poverty is getting worse, which liberals contend, and if government is spending more to “fix” poverty, why are their policies making the poor suffer more? The answer is one in which the poor don’t want to stomach.
Democrats in general — and President Barack Obama in specific — have also spoken out about income inequality. “Now, this kind of inequality — a level that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression — hurts us all…”
Here is a reality check. One cannot get their-self out of poverty on a welfare or unemployment check. Nor can one expect to move into the middle or upper class by levying higher taxes and regulations on the “rich”. The more businesses are taxed, the less business owners have in which to invest in their businesses – including their employees. Although this is common sense, there are too many people who still cannot understand the simplest, the most basic of economics. The “fair share” liberals always whine about is money in which business owners will pass along to both their costumers and their employees. Their employees will bear the brunt of the “fair share” tax hikes first by either losing benefits, hours, wages, raises, etc., or by being fired as business owners are forced to downsize their business, and their workforce, in order to remain afloat. In other words, a business owner will sacrifice their employees before their customers, and a business owner will sacrifice their employees before they sacrifice their business.
Here is one more reality check. Once a person actually does move into the middle class, from poverty, and realizes how much money the government is taking from their paycheck, how much more the government wants to take away, and how the government will turn a blind eye to the middle class, it dawns on them how destructive liberalism really is. If you want the government to take care of you, remain poor. But it comes with a heavy price. You must always remain poor.
That is the destructive hold liberalism has over the poor in America. And that is “the answer the poor do not want to stomach”. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have spent trillions of dollars, racked up more debt in three years than George Bush racked up in his eight years in office – mostly waging an important and necessary War on Terror. For all that money Obama wasted, which must at some point be paid back, more people are in poverty now than were in poverty when he took office. Do we see the correlation to liberal policy and poverty, and the rate and increase in poverty as a result of liberal policy?
If you were poor in 2008 and you voted for Obama, and you yet remain in poverty, who is really to blame for your economic situation? How will voting for Obama, for Obama’s liberal policies, in 2012 make any more of a positive difference for you, your family, than was made then?
In other words – are you better off now than you were four years ago? And, how will re-electing Obama move you out of poverty if it didn’t do so then?
The Neosecularist 