There is more to the "poverty picture" than meets the eye. It is not about poverty, at all. It is about tyranny versus historic American freedoms.

We have heard this, over and over again: "Since 2000, individual income has decreased a few percentage points." The Left, in its war against the working middle class and their rich cousins, blame Bush, the middle class TEA Party types and the super rich for hording more and more of the nation's wealth. What they do not tell you is this: the individual wage decrease is in disposable income, that wage AND benefits, together, have stayed the same, if not increased over the past ten years. What they do not tell you is that family and household incomes have increased at a steady pace during this same period of time, as well.

They blame the rich for having more, today, than they had yesterday. Libs reason that if wealth is decreasing within the lowest levels of our society, it must be increasing within the highest levels.

"The poor are getting poorer because the rich are getting richer."

While this reasoning is idiotic on its face, I will not argue that specific point. What they do not tell you is that this supposed increase in wealth among the rich is both "on paper" and the result of inflation, much more than for any other reasons. What they do not tell you is that in 2007, there were 390,000 millionaires in this country. That year they paid $309 billion dollars in federal taxes. Two years later, in 2009, there were 237,000 and they paid only 178 billion in federal taxes.

Know what this means? If you are a lib, you probably do not know or do not care. But for those who do care, here is the disturbing answer: in two years, there was a 39% decline in the number of millionaires in this country, and, a subsequent 42% decline in paid federal taxes. We have less federal income, today, because, in part, there are fewer rich people to supply this income. Understand that this particular statistic accounts for the loss of $130 billion a year or 1.3 trillion over the course of the coming decade. The Super Debt Commission is trying to come up with 1.3trillion in cuts by the end of this month, the same amount lost because of the decreasing population of the hated Rich. Anyone see the correlation?

You libs should be dancing in the streets. Your "tax the rich to hell and back; regulate them into austerity; penalize them for the air we breathe" campaign is working like a charm. At the present rate, within 20 years, social equity will have been achieved -- we will all be broke or poor.

Adding to the numbers above, of those making 10 million dollars or more in 2007, 18,386, more than 8,700 failed to report revenues at that level two years later, taking them out of the 10 million dollar club, altogether ---- a decline of 55% in two years.

The fact of the matter is this: Warren Buffet's billions have almost nothing to do with me, personally, as far as my ability to increase my wealth circumstance. But the decline in the number of Buffets, nation wide, is a problem for the national economy and its social schemes. Without the rich and their increasing wealth, this nation cannot grow its assistance to the poor, much less pay its own bills. Our social and financial safety nets, already legislated, are in serious trouble because the super rich population is in decline. Fewer rich means less money to redistribute. So, stop with "we hate the rich."

Look, when the charlatan's of the world, the Charles Schumers and the Barack Obamas and the Fat Michael Moores, point to the rise in the number of those in poverty in this country, and conclude, 'We need to give them a better life," I have a news flash for them: we are already giving them a better life.

We can't make them rich, but we can give them food, clothing, assist in paying their rent, give them money to attend school, help pay their utility bills, give them cell phones and television, cover their medical cost and . . . . . . . . . . . WE ARE ALREADY DO THAT.

Redistribution of wealth is not something we must do, it is something that is already being done!! The only reason our poor are not living on the side of the road with nothing in terms of personal possessions, like those in Kenya or Thailand or where ever, is that trillions of dollars of wealth have already been distributed to them.

The poorest of the poor, in this country, live on $5,500 a year if an individual, and $12,000 a year if a family of four. That is tough to do, in this country, but it gets done. folks ride bicycles to work or ride the bus or walk. They live with other family members. And they have a multiplicity of "safety net" functionaries that protect them.

Updated note: the dollar figures for our "poorest of the poor" do not include thousands of dollars given to these people, monthly, in terms of federal aid programs. Understand that food stamps, alone, could easily have a value of $ 4,800, annually (at $400 a month). Section 8 rent assistance, from HUD, would pay all but $80 on rent running around $900 a month . . . . . add another $9,600 a year to the equivalent annual income of our very poor. Compared to the poorest of the poor, world wide, statistically, we have no poor in this country. Wealth redistribution, as an accomplished fact, is not a futuristic dream of the Radical Left, it is a current reality in today's economy.

By contrast, Over 3 billion people in this world, nearly half of the world's population, live on $2.50 a day or less. Why are our poor 600% richer than the poorest of the world's population? Because of wealth redistribution. So, again, enough of this "we have to do something for the poor" nonsense.

The manta of "we must practice shared responsibility," one of Obama's favorite plagiarized lines, is such a hoax of an idea, that there must be something else going on.

Here is my theory: it is not about the "poor." The "poor" are only the catalyst for a move away from our own history and toward a social revolution that benefits only those in position of rulership. You say, "That is what we have today," and I say, " You're an idiot." That is not what we have today. If Hugo Chavez survives his cancer, and we can only hope for the best on that one, how many rich people will remain in Venezuela? The only ones who will be left standing are the few within the dictatorship. You hate the Koch brothers and I hate George Soros. But neither rule my life. Both are filthy rich.

If you want to know the thinking of the Ubber Left, here is a statement from one of their own publications. I will give you the statement and then, a response of sorts:

"While it is recognized that strong institutions, a functioning and non-corrupt democracy, an impartial media, equitable distribution of land and a well structured judicial system (and other such factors), etc. all help in realizing a successful nation and society, a lack of any of these things can lead to a marginalization of a sector of people. Often, it can be a very large sector." LINK

Here is what this statement means, in practical terms - and this is very important because we are talking about the belief system of the Radicalized Left. You cannot know what the quote, above, is actually talking about without the following information:

• "strong institutions" are those who promote equitable , wealth distribution
• "non-corrupt democracy" is one without a capitalist economy. In fact, the kind of democracy the authors are talking about is not a democracy at all, but that is for a discussion at a later time.
• "impartial media" is one that promotes redistribution and works to defeat capitalist enterprises.
• "equitable land distribution" is the opposite to private property ownership.
• "well structured judicial system" is one that judges the equitable application of the law, and is concerned more with social justice than with the strict interpretation of any law. Sonia Sotomayer and Elena Kagan, the two Obama appointed Supreme justices are of this type.
• "successful nation and society" is one that is defined by equitable distribution of wealth and well being. This is different from the "pursuit of happiness."

Now, with these "definitions" in mind, read that quote again, before moving on.

All peoples in America have the right to pursue happiness. No law should interfere with that pursuit.

The notion that there are successful nations that function on a different principle, one other than that expressed in our founding documents, is a fantasy, of course, but a theoretical reality for the pointie heads and academics within the current Administration -- which means it is no reality at all. You must know that no nation in this world, has ever been a success as defined by the people who authored the quote above . . . . none. . . . . . . . ever.

Here is what works:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is what the United States of America is all about. The preamble to any other successful form of governance has, yet, to be written.

To the degree that world governments (i.e. Britain, France, Japan, India, etc.) infuse the ideas intrinsic to our Declaration, those governments will be successful as democracies.

Understand that the United States was the first government in world history to institute "the people" as sovereign over all political powers seeking to rule "the people." We were the first.

You don't like the idea, go to hell (and I am not cursing - I really want you to go to hell). You want to change it, that will happen right after the next civil war. We are headed in that direction, you know. The scope and nature of that war is yet to be determined, but it is coming. I hope that the most important battle in this war is being fought right now, in this election season.

Whether or not that is true, one thing for certain, the Declaration of our Independence makes it clear that the people have a right to tear down any system of government that challenges the sovereignty of "the people."

Before the United States, Japan was a theocracy as was most of Asia; no free democratic society to be found. Before the United States and its break from the British Empire, Europe was ruled by Monarchs and benevolent dictators, for the most part. Much of the Russian/German/Barbarian world, of old, was ruled by tyrants and mongrel tribesmen. Pharoahs' ruled Egypt. Czars ruled Russia. Emperors ruled Greece and Rome and Asia. Island nations were ruled by "strong men."

Nowhere in this world, in the history of this world, was there anything similar to the governance ideas of the United States of America and its founding fathers. Of course there were mistakes made. Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Thomas Payne, and all the rest, were working off a blank sheet; they were creating a "first time ever" form of government. Indeed, mistakes were made. But, to imagine that, now, after 240 years, we have Ignorants in our midst, pushing for that which has failed, time and time again, is almost beyond belief. These illiterates have never stopped to appreciate the fact that the democracy we see in much of the world, the elections in Russia and Germany and Great Britain, on the African continent, in Egypt and Libya and Iraq, in Italy, Japan, India, Pakistan, Sir Lanka, Australia, Greenland and New Zealand -- all have the example of the United States of America to thank. We were the first and, hence, the example for all of the new democracies of the world. Certainly, their form of democratic expression will be different from our federalist/republic, but that does not alter the fact of our place in world history and the historical gift of free and democratic elections, is solely the workings of our great nation. That is why American Exceptionalism is so important, because it is the fact from which all modern day free societies have been borne.

I am proud of this country. You want to fundamentally transform this nation . . . . over my dead body. And that had better be the sentiment of the majority of Americans or this wonderful experiment will die and be forgotten, a hundred or two hundred years from now, with nothing in its place but Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, and Ir-o-sheo's Japan (ok, I don't know the name of the guy), and Imperialist Britan, and Conquering Rome -- all, the killing fields of people, from the beginning of time, people who yearned to be free.

Make changes to the system, if you will. But, don't change it from what it is, based on the founding documents that form our history, to something that was written by foreigners, men of power and greed, and conquering war lords such as Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or that Syrian King or Amad - I'm-a nut-job, the midget ruler of Iran.

Point of post: you can make changes to this country, but we will not allow you to transform it. The United States of America doesn't need transformation. Period.