How Much is Enough?

“We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product.”

This was, of course, the President of the United States of America Barack Obama off the teleprompter script.

Immediately, my reaction was to wonder what dollar amount, exactly, does he deem as enough? We’re not likely to get an answer to that anytime soon, though, because I doubt that any of his allies in the MSM would ever dare to ask for such clarification nor would they ever think to ask the question in the first place. Maybe during the next presidential election cycle there will be someone on a debate panel with the fortitude to resurrect the already forgotten quote.

Somehow, I don’t really feel the need to expound on the fundamentally socialist beliefs required to even make such a statement. I hope that such is wholly obvious to everyone, even to those on the far left. However, I wonder if the weight behind this statement being said by an American president – leader of the one nation in the world where capitalism has been the clear vehicle lending to its greatness – has registered with very many people at all. Though it should be quite clear now that the “Joe the Plumber” exchange was not just a fluke or conversation “taken out of context” and that Barack Obama, at heart, is nothing if not a through and through socialist.

All of that aside, perhaps we do know how much is enough. Go back to the campaign and remember the income threshold Obama stated for those who will not have their taxes raised and those who would certainly have their taxes raised. It was $250,000. Rings a bell, I hope. (By the way, this little plan of his didn’t last long.)

The national debt is just shy of cracking the $13,000,000,000,000 mark . . . yes, that is thirteen trillion dollars. Now, what most folks don’t understand is that the American dollar’s worth is based on the nation’s debt. For example, if the national debt were only $100, owning just a single dollar bill would make you one of the wealthiest 100 people in the country. Accordingly, the larger the debt, the more money is in circulation, and the less each actual dollar is worth. So, with each yearly budget the Democrat Congress writes and President Obama signs that is more than a trillion dollars in the red, our incomes become worth less and less as the money we are paid is devalued. So, besides the fact that Obama’s presidency alone is a tax on every American, does his figure of $250,000 for annual incomes as “enough” get adjusted each year to account for inflation?

Then another question must be asked to the president regarding his wealth redistribution dreams. If $250,000 per year is “enough” for any and all Americans, what are we supposed to do with any extra we might have earned?

And the questions keep right on rolling.

Barack Obama makes over $400,000 per year as the President of the United States . . . has he made any attempts to return roughly $150,000 of his salary to the taxpayers from whom it was taken? What about the multiple millions of dollars he earns from his book sales? Has he donated all of those royalties to charity or, better yet, redistributed that money to all Americans evenly so as to level the playing field a bit? I think we all know the answers to those questions. We are left with yet another hypocrisy in liberalism and the unmistakable message that only we peons are to have our wealth and property taken and then given to others deemed “needy.” Such is not for The One for he will bring us this form of justice, though, he surely shouldn’t be expected to be a part of it.

Okay, here’s the point that doesn’t need to be made for any conservative readers of this article. This is for you fence-sitters and libs:

The top 1% of Americans – meaning the wealthiest – pays so much in taxes that they alone fund over 90% of the federal budget. The rest of us who actually work, which is hardly more than half of the nation’s population, pay the other 10%. Now, you libs might think that this ratio is fair for some reason sure to be based in pettiness and ignorance. Rest assured that without that top 1% of wage-earners, our country would implode. Entitlements, alone, take up over 60% of the budget.

Okay, let me start again. I forgot that liberals don’t use ration and reason . . . they feeeeeel their way through decisions.

Without the rich people you hate, the country will be without anyone who can afford to own a business, much less hire anyone. So, without rich people, we have no jobs. Without jobs, the government can’t levy taxes. Without taxes, you won’t be getting your welfare check next week. Unless, of course, Barack Obama breaks down and practices what he preaches and “spreads the wealth around.”