If President Obama wants my vote in November, you need to tell me Why Obama hates me.
If you cannot convince me and my friends that Obama's hatred for low-income American citizens like us, and people of faith like us, is good for the country, then I'm more likely to vote for somebody who does not hate me. The other candidate comes readily to mind.
President Obama presided over the biggest tax increase on low income people since the Income Tax became law 99 years ago, almost +6% on me if my AGI income is the same in 2016 as it was last year. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the Supreme Court reminds us that Obama's new tax is a tax. I am not a burden on the taxpayers* nor the public health system, and nobody can prove otherwise. Care to try?
Obama wants to destroy me without cause. That's the same as hate.
Obama hates people of faith. Other than a tiny minority of religions Established by his laws and regulations contrary to the First Amendment of the Constitution (maybe the Supreme Court will see that and strike it down), Obama is trying to force people of faith to violate their conscience for no benefit to anybody except possibly some presumed employees who probably agree with their employers and wouldn't be "benefited" anyway. People of conscience are my friends, and Obama hates us.
Anybody who looks at deficit spending and unemployment over the last 12 years can see that they track. Bush started this mess, and Obama promised us more of the same (he used different words in 2008), and he delivered more of the same. I am presently unemployed. So long as he refuses to get serious about the deficit, it proves that Obama hates me and other low-income people like me trying to find work. Why?
I want to know Why Obama hates me.
If I get a chance, I will ask him in public, "Why do you hate me?"
Don't bother sending me prepackaged campaign lies like we saw in 2008. If you do, I will know that Obama hates American people and there is no good reason for Obama to still be President next year.
Don't bother sending me answers to questions I didn't ask. I can get answers to those questions on the internet, and if that's all you have to say, I will know that you cannot explain Why Obama hates me, and that you do not want me and my friends to vote for him in November.
If you send me something worth reading, I will
post it on my weblog.
If not, I will say that instead.
You have two months to convince us.
* Ask your tax people: If I earn $12,000 (or whatever is just above the FPL) in 2016, and I choose not to be a burden on the tax-funded public health system, What percentage of that $12,000 must I pay in Obama's New Tax? Ask them!
Explanatory notes not included in original letter...
I have sought for, and am unable to find, anybody willing to defend
this law on a level playing field. That tells me that even the people who
voted for it know it's a bad law.
The people who are presently a burden on the taxpayers will still be a burden on the taxpayer under the new law. If they are on MedicAid, they will receive subsidized health insurance, all at taxpayer expense. If they are not on some subsidized health plan, but go to emergency rooms for service at taxpayer expense, they will be forced onto subsidized health insurance, still at taxpayer expense. In both cases the cost to the taxpayers will probably increase because they will be eligible for more (now "free") medical services that they previously did without.
Some of the people who are too poor for elective health care today, and are therefore not a burden on the taxpayer today, will be forced onto the welfare rolls with taxpayer-funded insurance under the new law and start becoming a burden on the taxpayer.
Nobody who is a burden on the taxpayer today will cease to be a burden
on the taxpayer under the new law, but many people who are not a burden
on the taxpayer today will become so under the new law. The new law
accomplishes no useful function from the government perspective, except
to add to the welfare rolls people thereby inclined to continue the handouts
by voting for that political party which started them. The Conscience Penalty
Tax offers no benefits to the American people at all. Therefore it is a
tax burden without just cause.
From 0% in 2008 when Obama promised not to raise taxes on us (and still 0% in 2009-2013, before the Conscience Penalty Tax kicks in) to 7.3% in 2016 is a pretty big tax increase on poor people. By comparison, a very rich person stuck with the same tax, if suppose he makes $10 million in 2016, he pays less than 0.1% of his income in new tax. Obama is exempt from paying the Conscience Penalty Tax for the rest of his life, but if he or his rich cronies had to pay it, he is rich enough to get away with less than 1% of his income in new tax. But don't believe me, ask your own tax attorney (if you can afford one). Or wait until 2016 and it will be all over the news, after it's too late to do anything about it.
For somebody who got elected promising to tax the rich and "not one
dime in new taxes" on the poor, 7.3% in new tax on people below the FPL
and less than 0.1% on the very rich looks pretty suspiciously like a fraud.
Do we want people like that in the White House?
Obama is like a lot of atheists, who are willing for you to believe
anything you want, so long as it does not affect your life. That's not
religion, that's fiction. True religion, the Bible tells us, is doing things
in the real world that make a difference in the real world. That would
make Obama's religion -- nevermind what he says it is -- to be smashing
the religions of other Americans. That's what he's doing, and it makes
a difference in the world. Do we want people like that in the white House?
Rev. 2012 September 13