RealDealPolitics.com

Many people are still dumbfounded and looking for answers on how their fellow voters could elect a half-term senator who’s never held a real job, and thinks that 95% of voters pay income taxes, as president. Let me shed some light on the situation.

The margin of Senator Obama’s victory in the Presidential Election (52.6% vs. McCain 46.1%) would seem to give him a mandate for his agenda of “change” in government, particularly when you add the fact that his Democrat party gained even more seats in Congress.

But what exactly is that agenda? Is it one of “tax cuts for all” or is it a massive redistribution of income via the highly inefficient bureaucracy of the federal government?

First, put aside the fact that there were more votes cast in some areas than there were registered voters, the thousands if not more of fraudulent voters registered by ACORN, and the fact that this will go down in history as the most fraudulent presidential election since 1960, if not in history.

Next, let’s take the most obvious and iterative point he made during his campaign: the 95% “everyone except the rich” tax cut.  Now, many of us, I would hope, probably know that this is impossible, since approximately 35% of adult citizens do not pay the income tax. But apparently, most do not know this.

A Rasmussen poll going into the election reported that 31% of voters thought Obama would cut their taxes, whereas only 11% expected a tax cut from McCain. So, Mr. Obama stole the tax-cut issue from the Republicans somehow.

But this goes against all knowledge. The Democrat Party has not supported tax cuts for a long time, and the facts are that the last Democrat president to cut taxes was JFK, and most Democrats in Congress, including Obama, have always voted against tax cuts, for anyone.

It probably didn’t help McCain that he voted against the Bush tax cuts, despite his excuse that he wanted spending cuts and no earmarks with it. But regardless, they pork-barreled the tax cuts through Congress, and everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. Further, it was a regressive cut. Those that had paid more taxes got the same amount returned as everyone else.

What am I missing here? Nothing. I’m seeing the whole picture, whereas the approximate half (we’ll give him credit for that even though only 90% of the votes at maximum were legitimate) of people that voted for him, either don’t see that, or agree with his wealth redistribution policy.

Let’s break it down.  As aforementioned, about 35% of adults don’t pay the income tax. I think it’s safe to say they understand what a 95% tax cut is more than anyone: it’s a free handout for them!  I would imagine that it’s difficult for them to turn down a handout, regardless of their principles. So let’s say 30% of voters voted themselves a redistributive handout.

Next, we’re left with about 20% of voters who actually pay taxes, voting for Obama. Of these people, probably many of them believe they will actually get a tax cut, and others were just voting for “change” because they hate Bush, etc.

After all, the media has disseminated nothing but hatred for the Bush administration for the past 8 years, and many people want a candidate that the media approves of.  The understanding for some is that he will give them a tax cut, but even the poll above rates it as unlikely, with only 31% believing Obama will deliver on that promise.

McCain didn’t run on tax cuts for people, but rather making the Bush tax cuts permanent and lowering some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. To people that understand economics like me, this was the win-win plan that we were looking for. However, this message was not well received by some of the tax-cut voters.

What was not mentioned about the Obama plan was that he lets the “Bush tax cuts expire” in two years, meaning everyone’s taxes get hiked again. So he starts by raising taxes on the “rich” meaning people or businesses with income over $250k, which then reduced to $200k, then $150k, and then $100k, and only Obama himself knows how low that threshold will go. My guess is it will be everyone that pays income.

Then, in 2010, he lets the tax cuts expire, meaning he raises taxes again. This is the absolute worst approach you can take to an economy that is having major problems right now. There are two ways that the wage-payers, including “rich” people and businessmen, can deal with higher taxes:
            1. Pass on higher prices to the consumer, if they can, preserving their infrastructure
            2. Cut jobs and/or cut wages

In other words, they can stick it to the consumer, or stick it to the employees. In reality, yes they could cut their own wages, but do you really expect them to?

About 48% of voters obviously understood that the McCain plan was better for the economy, regardless of whether they would be the individual recipient of a tax cut. Almost half of voters understood that redistributing income and raising taxes on wage-payers can not help us out of a recession.

That’s a decent number, but in order to increase it to a proper level of over 60%, you need to get that message out better. Ronald Reagan, otherwise known as Ronaldus Magnus, understood the value of cutting taxes and was able to get his message across to the people effectively. McCain was not.

Let’s break down the total election numbers in terms of who voted for what.

Obama voters:

·        25%     voted themselves a redistributive handout from the government but said “change”

·        10%     because he is black and can dance

·        10%     voted for “change”

·        5%       voted for a tax cut for the little guy, which is them

·        2.6%    fraudulent votes by ACORN, double voters, etc

McCain voters:

·        20%     keep taxes low and decrease taxes for business

·        10%     someone that loves his country rather than one who doesn’t

·        10%     someone with the experience to run a country

·        1.1%    because he is old and white

Other:

·        1%       voted for impossible candidates so they can’t be held liable for results

In one way or another, most people voted with their pocketbook. They voted for some form of a tax cut or redistribution to themselves. So, American’s greed has come full circle, and we’re left with a communist for president. Good job, congrats all around.

The real policy of change espoused by Obama and his current allies Reid and Pelosi in congress is a massive redistribution policy of social welfare that will increase the amount of Americans that are either dependent on government or controlled by government.

One glaringly obvious indicator that most people seemed to miss was Obama’s promise to raise taxes on oil companies. So, gas prices will go up basically. Just when Americans were getting tired of high gas prices, Obama guarantees an increase. That’s great.

So what can we count on if he follows through? Higher prices for goods and services (yes this includes food, clothing, and gas).  Lost jobs and lower wages for people employed by businesses that will have their taxes raised for being evil.

I wonder what the elections would have been like if they had let me get up on stage during the debates and explain the ramifications of each candidates tax policies. But then again, if the candidate can’t get it across himself, then he’s not that great a candidate.

Let’s just hope we can weather this economic storm that Obama has promised to turn into a hurricane.