While browsing the Yahoo News website yesterday, I came across the following article:
President Barack Obama told cheering supporters at a fundraiser in Connecticut on Monday that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would raise taxes on middle-class Americans to pay for a tax cut benefiting the very rich: “It’s like Robin Hood in reverse. It’s Romney Hood.” His remarks drew laughter and applause.
Obama pointed to a recent study [written by a former Obama staffer and another Obama political ally] …of Romney’s approach… that speculated that, to pay for his proposed tax cut on the wealthiest Americans, the former Massachusetts governor would have to end popular measures like the mortgage and child deductions and the Earned Income Tax Credit – which chiefly benefit middle-class and poor Americans.
“He’d ask the middle class to pay more in taxes so that he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than three million dollars a year,” Obama said.
“They have tried to sell us this trickle-down, tax-cut fairy dust before. And guess what? It does not work. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now,” the president said. “It’s not a plan to create jobs, it’s not a plan to reduce our deficit, and it is not a plan to move our economy forward.”
This guy just can’t seem to understand that raising taxes on the “rich” is no different than raising taxes on everyone, because ALL TAXES TRICKLE DOWN!
As I’ve pointed out countless times in the past, it is a practical impossibility to raise taxes on only the wealthiest Americans. Those are the folks who own and produce most of the things that everybody else needs, so increasing their tax liability causes them to raise prices on nearly everything the rest of us buy; food, gasoline, clothing, electricity, insurance, electronics… you name it. Even a tenant’s rent payments go up when his landlord’s taxes get hiked, and almost all of America’s poor are renters, so they get hit the hardest when tax rates on upper-income earners increase.
Knowing this, it only makes sense that if one is primarily concerned with improving the lives of the poorest of the poor, one should cut EVERYONE’S taxes, most especially those of the well-to-do. Ronald Reagan knew this. Liberal icon, John F. Kennedy, knew this. Heck, even George W. Bush knew this, and he was an average economics student at best. It’s a scenario that conservatives like myself call a “no-brainer”, but one that leftists like Barack Obama call “the failed policies of the past”.
Wow, is our current Commander In Chief dumber than a box of coat hangers or what?
Oh, and it’s also a well-documented fact that cutting the tax rates of people at every income level, simultaneously, always ends up increasing revenues to the government (again, Reagan, Bush and Kennedy prove my point) so if you’re mainly worried about balancing our nation’s books, this policy gets you most of the way there. Unfortunately, to get the rest of the way down this road you have to cut spending by an amount equal to the sum total of revenues collected, and that’s something that our president and every single Democrat in the U.S. Senate refuses to do.
But enough about basic economics. Even leftists as old as ‘charming Barry’ are obviously too out of touch with reality to understand what I was able to grasp with relative ease at the age of 8.
Hopefully, what I’m about to relate won’t completely elude all such dullards indefinitely, although I must confess that I’m not holding out a great deal of hope in this respect. Still, I feel the need to at least try and reach a few of our left-leaning fellow Americans just this once, so here goes.
Robin Hood (aka Robin of Loxley) did NOT “steal from the rich to give to the poor”, as so many of you blathering fools are want to believe.
The earliest references to the fabled outlaw – which date back to mid-13th century England – characterize him as being an affluent landowner who had his wealth unjustly seized by a power-mad monarchy, and it was this affront to him personally that led him to commit unlawful acts against the very regime which had wronged him.
Later retellings of the bandit’s exploits show that the principal target of his robbery was the Sheriff of Nottingham – the chief tax-collecter of the land – whose men were notoriously ruthless in their pursuit of tax revenues.
While Robin Hood certainly identified with the least fortunate around him, he was not some common highwayman who stole money from any old rich person that happened to cross his path.
No, Robin was a man of honor who was motivated by the concept of justice. While he may have started out thinking only of himself and how he might exact revenge on the authorities who had ruined him, he soon came to realize that there were many other people in even more dire straits than he. So he decided to reclaim that which had unfairly been taken from him AND his new-found comrades by a despotic ruler.
In essence, by stealing money from the tax collectors and returning it to the people of his community, he was securing recompense not only for himself, but for all the victims of the King’s tyranny.
It was a win-win situation from his point of view, and the only people who were harmed by his actions were the unreasonable government officials who thought that the needs of the state were more important than the needs of the individual.
Oddly enough, in one of the earliest versions of the Robin Hood tale, our hero is shown to be a money-lender who loans funds to a knight whose son has killed two people. Apparently one could pay off a “debt of sin” with cold, hard cash back in those days.
By any means, I find it interesting that Mitt Romney was also a money-lender, and it’s more than a little ironic that Barack Obama – the most dogmatically blinded, tax-and-spend, leftist president in American history – should be referring to such a man as the anti-Robin Hood, especially when it is Mitt who decries over-taxation and unrestrained federal intrusion into our lives.
Indeed, it’s the sitting president himself who seeks to punish people with ballooning tax rates, oppressive regulations and constitutionally-questionable executive orders simply because he was raised to respect the sovereignty of government instead of the sovereignty of his fellow citizens.
I wonder what Robin Hood would have to say about that.