Liberals have no intention ofactually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger tohelp the poor. That’s for other people to do with what’s left of theirincomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.
by Ann Coulter
Are you sitting down? Obama plans to pay for his $3.6 trillion-dollarspending bill by raising taxes on “the rich.” I know, I know … I waspretty shocked, too.
The bad news is, by hiking taxes in arecession, Obama will turn a disaster into a catastrophe. But there’sgood news, too. The “rich” include most of Obama’s biggest supporters.
Whileliberals love being praised for their looks, their style, theirbrilliance and their courage, the one quality they don’t want talkedabout is their money. To the contrary, Democrats are constantlyboasting about how poor they are — as if that’s a virtue in acapitalist society with no class barriers.No matter how much money they have, liberals will be damned if they’regiving up the poor’s mantle of angry self-righteousness. This isespecially true if their wealth came by inheritance, marriage or thetaxpayer, the preferred sources of income for Liberalus Americanus.
Democrats’ claims of poverty merely serve to show how out of touch elected Democrats are with actual incomes in America.
Atthe Democratic National Convention, for example, there were heartfelttributes to the daunting self-sacrifice of both Barack and MichelleObama for passing up lucrative jobs to work in “public service” –which apparently is now defined, such as in Michelle Obama’s case, as”working as a ‘diversity coordinator’ at a big city hospital for$300,000 a year.”
Seriously, even with a company car, full medical benefits and six weeks’ paid vacation thrown in, how do people live on that?
Meanwhile,the average salary for a lawyer with 20 years or more experience in theU.S. is a little more than $100,000. If Michelle Obama doesn’t lay offall this “giving back” stuff pretty soon, she’s going to find herselfin Warren Buffett’s tax bracket.
During the campaign, JoeBiden was also praised by the Democrats for being the poorest U.S.senator — as if that were a major accomplishment.
HowardDean, then-chairman of the Democratic National Committee, touted Bidenas “a good example of a working-class kid,” adding that, to this day,Biden was “one of the least wealthy members of the U.S. Senate.” Only aDemocrat would list “never really made anything of myself” on hisresume.
On the Huffington Post, operated by a woman whoacquired her wealth by marrying a rich gay guy connected to Big Oil,liberal blogger Steven Clemons gloated that, unlike John McCain, Bidenwouldn’t “forget the number of houses he owns,” adding that, in 2006,Biden was ranked the poorest U.S. senator.
And at his high school reunion Biden was voted “most likely to try to bum a ride off of somebody.” Vote Biden!
Accordingto tax returns for Biden and his public schoolteacher wife, in 2006,their total income was $248,459; in 2007, it was $319,853 — puttingthe couple in the top 1 percent of all earners in the U.S.
This,my friends, is the face of poverty in America. At least in theDemocratic Party. It’s located just below that row of hair plugs. TheBidens are yet another heart-rending example of America’s “hidden poor”– desperately needy families hidden behind annual incomes of a quartermillion dollars or more paid by the taxpayer. My fellow Americans, wecan do better.
The national median household income was $48,201 in 2006 and $50,233 in 2007. Working for the government pays well.
Ifliberals are going to show how in touch they are with normal Americansby demanding a Marxist revolution against the rich every time theycontrol the government, how about taking a peek at the charitablegiving of these champions of the little guy?
According totheir tax returns, in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has todraw the line someplace with all this “giving back” stuff. The Bidensgave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.
Nowonder Obama doesn’t see what the big fuss is over his decision tolimit tax deductions for charitable giving. At least that part ofObama’s tax plan won’t affect his supporters.
Meanwhile,in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591,$212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were$28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave awaymore than 10 percent of his income each year.
For purposesof comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million — more thantwice President Bush’s 2005 income of $735,180 — but they both gaveabout the same amount to charity.
That same year, theheartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bushgave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller thanObama’s. Maybe when Obama talks about “change” he’s referring to hischaritable contributions.
Liberals have no intention ofactually parting with any of their own wealth or lifting a finger tohelp the poor. That’s for other people to do with what’s left of theirincomes after the government has taken its increasingly large cut.
Asthe great liberal intellectual Bertrand Russell explained whilescoffing at the idea that he would give his money to charity: “I’mafraid you’ve got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don’t pretend to beChristians.”
Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=1377470x2893895x147459758&id=31041