“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Barack Hussein Obama.
Oops. That was actually Karl Marx. My bad.
Not that it really matters. Both men think pretty much share the same politics. Obama with his “spread the wealth around” mindset is basically saying the exact same thing as Marx in a slightly different way:
“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
People like Andy Roth of the Club for Growth tried to warn us:
“It’s clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth. He’s perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it.”
But Obama’s KoolAid tasted a lot better than wisdom, common sense, and basic decency. Why work when you can confiscate someone else’s wealth by means of the tyranny of the masses and the ideology of Marxist class warfare?
Obama is a socialist. Socialists don’t mind wealth at all: they love it. They just want it in THEIR hands and under THEIR control, rather than anyone else’s.
Let me just give you a quick example. Goldman Sachs is being attacked (and perhaps justly) for literally betting that the mortgage market would go bust, while misrepresenting mortgage securities to suckers who took them off their hands.
So Goldman Sachs is evil.
But which cynical, demagogic politician took more Goldman Sachs money than ANYBODY???
Barack Hussein Obama. The little rat bastard weasel didn’t seem to mind when Goldman Sachs was making “more than enough money” to give him a million dollars to buy his victory, did he?
Meanwhile, Obama is helping his Goldman Sachs buddies make billions by means in the cap-and-trade boondoggle (and see also here).
Not that truth matters, of course.
Anyway, we’ve got Barry Hussein channeling Marx yet again:
Obama goes off teleprompter and allows his socialist side to show
Barack Obama:
“I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money”
If we take President Obama at his word, there comes a point when companies and people have made enough money. Logically, it would then be moral in his eyes for the government to confiscate the rest of their earnings. President Obama went off teleprompter and allowed his socialist side to show.
Obama to Wall St.: ‘I Do Think at Some Point You’ve Made Enough Money’ (video)
So with all due respect about Barry Hussein: just who is this son of a bitch to lecture anybody about anything?
Tags: campaign contributions, cap-and-trade, class warfare, From each according to his ability, Goldman-Sachs, I Do Think at Some Point You've Made Enough Money, Marx, Marxism, Obama, redistribution of wealth, socialist, spread the wealth around, to each according to his need
Start Thinking Right 
May 1, 2010 at 2:23 pm
I WANT HALF OF THE OBAMA’S $5.5 MILLION THEY MADE LAST YEAR. I WANT TO REDISTRIBUTE IT AND SPREAD IT AROUND TO SOME PEOPLE I KNOW WHO WOULD LIKE IT!
Do you thing Barry and Michelle would go for that????
God get them!
May 1, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Yeah. I’d say Obama has made enough money. I’d say a whole bunch of Obama’s people should give away 90% of their wealth so they can at least have the virtue of being consistent with their nonsense.
May 2, 2010 at 1:35 pm
OBAMA HAS ORDERED US ARMY TROOPS TO MARCH UNDER HUGE PORTRAIT OF MASS MURDERER AND COMMUNIST DICTATOR, JOSEPH STALIN ON MAY 9 IN RUSSIA.
SEE STORY AND PHOTOS HERE: http://www.commieblaster.com
May 2, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Well, doesn’t that just beat all.
Hey Barry Hussein, you’re Stalin is showing.
July 28, 2010 at 9:52 am
I’m a socialist and Obama infuriates me. I’d rather McCain be president than Obama.
July 28, 2010 at 1:12 pm
So you want your socialism fed to you by slow speed, high drag RINO McCain rather than high speed, low drag Marxist Obama???
On a serious note, I might understand what you’re really saying. There is at least theoretically an honest socialist who genuinely cares for the people (I’m not claiming there is; I’m merely admitting the theoretical possibility). Barack Obama is not that guy. He is the most dishonest man who has ever served as our president, and yes I’m including Nixon. He is a liar, a hypocrite, and a completely self-absorbed narcissist.
As I realized when the Jeremiah Wright tapes came out: Barack Obama is an evil man. He will lead this country into ruin.
December 16, 2010 at 8:49 am
Typical right-wing racists don’t know what the words. Do anything to rub off eight years of their with crap with Bush. American presidents have been raising and lowering taxes for centuries. But suddenly, because Barack Obama wants to lower taxes on the struggling middle class and return the tax rate on the rich to what it was under the Clinton administration, he’s a Marxist who wants to turn America into Sweden. It’s completely ridiculous. For dumbasses who don’t know socialism means.
December 16, 2010 at 8:53 am
Typical tebagger racist and his KKK followers who doesn’t know what the words mean. Do anything to rub off eight years of right wing stupidity of Bush. American presidents have been raising and lowering taxes for centuries. But suddenly, because Barack Obama wants to lower taxes on the struggling middle class and return the tax rate on the rich to what it was under the Clinton administration, he’s a Marxist who wants to turn America into Sweden. It’s completely ridiculous.
December 16, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Typical liberal dumbass who is so “open-minded” his brains fell out of his skull. And then he decided that some people aren’t as smart as others, and having intelligence was a form of discrimination. So he stomped on his brains to “level the playing field.” And now he’s a drooling imbecile who wastes people’s time.
When “the stupidity of Bush” left office, the unemployment rate was 7.6%. Two years after Bush, two full years of Obama’s policies later, that unemployment rate is now 9.8%. Under your “Mr. Genius,” it is 28.95% higher than it EVER was under “the right wing stupidity of Bush.”
And people like you would rather have us all living in North Korea-like conditions than have a single good thing to say about Bush.
Bill Clinton left Bush with the Dotcom implosion. Look it up. It’s not an opinion; it’s a fact. During that Dotcom bubble, which Bush inherited, the Nasdaq lost 78% of it’s value. How much did that cost the U.S. economy? How about this: $7.1 TRILLION in wealth was vaporized.
Add to that that the Clinton foreign policy produced a climate in which Osama bin Laden concluded that the United States was a “paper tiger” who would retreat after a few dead American bodies were displayed. And that emboldened him to attack us directly. Allow me to quote his exact words:
And when, where and why did bin Laden start hatching his plan to attack America? In 1992, after Bill Clinton ran away with his tail between his legs in Somalia.
9/11 attack. Dotcom bubble. Two devastating gut-punches. And we got them both from Slick Willie.
So 8 months into Bush’s presidency (after 8 YEARS of Clinton), and as a direct result of Clinton’s foreign policy, bin Laden massively attacked the US. And, for the record, the 19 attackers were ALREADY in America before Bush took office.
That attack had a gigantic negative impact on the Bush economy. To go along with the other devastating failure of the Dotcom bubble.
And Bush turned all that around with his tax cuts. Those tax cuts very much included tax cuts for EVERYONE who paid federal income taxes. It was the BUSH tax cuts that lowered taxes for the middle class. And Bush secured those tax cuts over Democrats’ dead bodies.
And, that said, the same liberal whackjobs such as yourself who condemn me for criticizing Obama had nothing but frothing insanity for George Bush. Because it was FINE for you to hate, but how DARE I be a “typical teabagger racist.” You disgusting hypocrite.
Let me ask you a question: explain to me the difference between Obama and Karl Marx. Explain to me the precise difference between the two.
Since my comparison is so “ridiculous,” I’m sure you’ll have no trouble at all demonstrating how these two defining statements of each man’s economic philosophy are fundamentally incompatible with one another. And explain how there is no way that a reasonable person would conclude that the two men are saying fundamentally the same thing.
You’ll be able to show that Karl Marx’s position – which was very obviously socialism – is in no way, shape or form whatsoever the same as Obama’s position. Because, after all, Obama isn’t a socialist, right?
Otherwise, kindly shut the hell up and go away.
November 3, 2011 at 7:45 pm
In theological circles we would call what is being done here prooftexting. Or to put it differently the discussion proceeds along the lines of saying that both Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities” and the sitcom “Sex in the city” have the word city in them and are therefore accounts of masochistic depravity.
The precise difference between Karl Marx and Barack Obama, besides a century or two, was that Karl Marx was a keen critic of political economy and the excesses, contradictions and injustice of the social living conditions of his time. Obama, conversely, is a keen opportunist who pandered to a vague populist sentiment about hope, and the general weariness of the Bush years, only to turn around and continue the same devastating policies, and allow the financial elite to continue to mismanage and exploit economic resources.
Marx was committed to a struggle for those suffering oppression, such that he suffered exile and poverty, while Obama is dedicated to reproducing the social conditions of the status quo. Marx was a brilliant philosopher and economist who, aside from the political movements he is credited with inspiring (and yes there are some deplorable moments within them) also contributed to the foundations of modern social science. Obama is a president. His term will end, and then he will not be president, or maybe will be for a little while longer. Historically his importance is marginal. And he is not a socialist, though probably everyone knows that by now.
Also the term socialism predates Marx, and refers to a much broader political tradtion. The composer of the American Pledge of Allegiance, for example, was written by a socialist.By most of the renditions of socialism posted here Thomas Paine would have been a socialist, far more than Obama.
November 3, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Okay, okay, I get it, Anonymous.
You’re a true religious Marxist (aptly demonstrated by your moving from “theological circles” to idealizing Karl Marx), and I’ve insulted you by comparing your prophet to Obama.
And so you’re trying to return the favor, insulting Republicans by saying Obama’s really a conservative small government laissez faire capitalist.
I wasn’t a huge fan of George Bush, but comparing Obama to him is a truly low blow even for Mr. “Compassionate Conservatism.” That crap just doesn’t fly.
The thing is that I’m a heckuva lot more right than you are. I mean, you ramble on well enough and everything, but you never even try to answer the basic question: when Obama or Democrats talk on and on about redistribution of wealth and the 99 percent and making the wealthy pay their fair share, etc etc, just how are they not taking the same position as Karl Marx.
So no, I wasn’t “prooftexting” at all; I was making a legitimate point which you dismissed and disregarded before going on with your tirade about how brilliant the most dumbassed and failed economist in the history of the entire world really was. You know, I know that YOU don’t do it, but sane people tend to consider how a man’s ideas work in the actual world. And Marxism has a perfect track record of resulting in complete economic failure 100% of the time.
I could care less about the guy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, and I’m not all that much more caring about Thomas Paine (who fwiw wasn’t a founding father by any standard definition). That said, I note that the way you label Thomas Paine as a socialist based on rather flimsy evidence at best, I am WAY more than justified so labelling Obama.
You make the basic mistake of assuming that a president of the United States has the power to do whatever he wants. You are wrong. And that is one of the first things that every single president of the United States has learned about power in a democratic republic. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Karl Marx himself was somehow elected president on a “hope and change” campaign. Would he be able to get his tax hikes through any better than Obama? Would the Republican Congress cave and abandon their principles because it was THE Karl Marx rather than just Obama? How would Karl Marx impose his communism on a democratic republic?
Barack Obama has been as damn SOCIALIST as he could possibly get away with in what has always been a center RIGHT America. And for you to actually think that Karl Marx would actually be able to turn America Marxist is just asinine on its face.
So let’s get down to the nitty gritty: please very carefully explain precisely why Barack Obama in no ways resembles the Karl Marx award for believing that, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Please explain how Barack Obama’s calling out “the top 1 percent” or when he says, “and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody” makes him like Ronald Reagan and not at all like Karl Marx. I’ll get the popcorn.
December 2, 2011 at 1:08 pm
United States did attempted to apply communist principle “to each according to his needs” and blew as socialist camp …. For what is dealt to each cap credit as it is needful … if not natural “communism” …… gagaga.. A here in socialism camp was not so many communists ….