Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’”

  1. Boots Says:

    Thinking right (assuming that the right can think logically) and from a conservative perspective is like driving down the road to perdition. It has a bad ending. Like in the fable the Frog and the Scorpion (republicans being the scorpion) one can never believe what they say.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    That’s an interesting accusation, Boots. The fact that you’ve got nothing to back it up but your demagogic leftist hate has nothing to do with anything, I suppose.

    Let’s take a look at Democrats. We’ve got Barack Obama – who literally repeatedly lied about his own mother’s death. Which is so cynical and so vile it is beyond belief.

    Obama Lied About His Mother’s Medical Treatment

    One of the touching stories that Obama told during the campaign was about how his mother, fighting cancer in 1995 had to fight with the insurance company to pay for her treatment. Here is what Obama said:

    “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that,”

    In a new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott’s “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” she uncovers that Obama’s mother had no major problems with her health insurance coverage at the time she was dying of ovarian cancer. In fact, her employer flew her to Hawaii for treatment. They also paid for her car and her home.

    From <a href="http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/07/12/obamas-tale-about-his-mother-being-denied-health-insurance-debunked#ixzz1S5tvnbB7

    “>Fox News:

    Scott, who had access to Dunham’s correspondence from the time, reveals that Dunham unquestionably had health coverage. “Ann’s compensation for her job in Jakarta had included health insurance, which covered most of the costs of her medical treatment,” Scott writes. “Once she was back in Hawaii, the hospital billed her insurance company directly, leaving Ann to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”

    This is astounding to me. Obama used this story to advance his fight for Obamacare, and it was a complete lie. They never said that this may be a pre existing condition. THey never said they wouldn’t pay for her treatment. I used to believe that although I disagreed with Obama on issues and beliefs, he was bascially a good man.

    I no longer believe that.

    via Politico

    Update: Here is the NYT story on this.

    How do you have any kind of honest negotiation with someone who lies about his own mother just to score cheap demagogic political points? Only a dishonest vermin like YOU, boots, supports a guy like this.

    But that’s not the end of the last couple days’ developments. There’s also the fact that the Obama White House – trouncing all over the 1st Amendment – attacked and undermined Fox News and then LIED about doing so:

    White House attacking, excluding Fox NewsFreedom of Information data sheds new light on a battle that drew me in
    July 14, 2011|By David Zurawik | The Baltimore Sun

    I honestly don’t know if I have the energy for this post today. I fought this battle in 2009 when the White House went to war with Fox, and I have the scars to prove it.

    I am so tired of standing up for journalistic principles in the middle of ideological battlefields and getting hammered from partisans on both sides that some days I think I’m crazy to do it.

    But either you believe in these journalistic and ethical principles or you don’t. And documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and published today at Judicial Watch show an Obama White House that tried to bully the press into submission. And when the news operation wouldn’t bend, Team Obama tried to punish it.

    Citizens and potential voters need to have this information about their elected leader and his team in the White House. So here goes. You can read the Judicial report report here under the headline: “White House attacked, excluded Fox News.” Check out the juvenile, nasty language of the White house emails, by the way. Not exactly the best and brightest gang in the West Wing these days, is it?
    I’ll try to do this mostly with videos. But here’s what you need to know to make sense of the videos.

    In October of 2009, the Obama White House launched an attack on Fox News. It started on the Sunday TV shows with senior White House officials denouncing Fox and saying it was an arm of the Republican Party. But the backstage stuff was far nastier. The Obama White House said Fox wasn’t a legitimate news organization and should not be treated as a member of the press corps. Team Obama took it upon itself to start denying Fox News access the to the administration that it gave to everyone else.

    I got involved as one of the only mainstream, non-partisan media critics who said the executive branch of government does not get to say who is and who isn’t a legitimate member of the press corps. That principle was laid down by the founding fathers, and this country only works with a free and independent press — not one bullied into submission by the White House.

    I’ll spare you the details of the backstage pushback I received. And I’ll spare you my conflicted feelings about defending Fox given some of the anti-journalism brazenly practiced there. But like I said, you either believe in these principles and act of them, or you don’t deserve to be a media critic.

    Read the report from Judicial Watch, and check out the videos here and here below to see how it played out on TV as it was happening. (I tried to post the videos, but the new software I am using is not co-operating. I’ll say no more about the software.)

    I understand how hard it is right now to have anything but contempt for any property owned by Rupert Murdoch. Based on what has happened in England with the reprehensible phone hacking done by operatives at one of Murdoch’s papers, the contempt seems warranted. And with the FBI now investigating News Corp. in the U.S., it looks as if the bad behavior might have not been contained to the other side of the Atlantic.

    But for now, try to rise above those feelings and dispassionately consider the facts of this case that has been cast into a different light by the FOI documents. People need to know the extent to which White House officials have lied.

    I have said it before: Not since Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, have I see a White House with such contempt for the press — and disregard for the historic role a free press plays in this society.

    More on how the White House LIED about that story here.

    So that’s two massive lies being revealed just this week, Boots.

    Let’s continue to see what a lying piece of cockroach crap Barack Oama is. What did Obama say on raising the debt ceiling when the Democrat pile of slime was a Senator who refused to support it???

    “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

    How DARE you call conservatives liars when your own side’s lies are like a tsunami every single day, you LIAR. And you just take your lies to “perdition” with you, where you will one day burn for eternity for your part in the murder of more than 50 million innocent babies.

  3. William Says:

    Wow Micheal. You have outdone yourself. That was an incredible reply! Awesome! I read your blog everyday from Iraq, keep up the good work!

  4. HL Says:

    Good Morning Michael!
    Passing this along in the event you hadn’t seen it yet..


  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks, William.

    Appreciate the support, and your reading.

    We just have to keep on truckin’, as they say.

  6. Michael Eden Says:


    Hand’t seen that but had heard Rick Perry was attending a large Christian call prayer.

    It is beyond amazing that the Democrat Party is so opposed to this event. It kind of goes to show you that they really ARE the party of “God damn America.”

  7. scout Says:

    Awesome reply to Boots. Too bad, they are the frog in the pot of water, they are so blinded by ideology that they will never see what is coming, until the water is too hot to escape from, .

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for that support, Scout.

    Liberals were born blind to reality. They have a worldview which is based on theories (e.g. Marxism and postmodernism) which make it impossible for them to see the world as it actually is.

    Which is why they tend to think in slogans.

    Conservatives believe in God, and most of them believe in the Bible as God’s revelation to humanity. We therefore have “the God’s-eye view” of reality, in that we see the world the way our Creator would have us see the world.

    If you have that God’s-eye view of the world, you don’t have to be a genius to basically understand the nature of reality; if you don’t have it, you can have a genius IQ and a dozen PhDs and all your “liberal arts” education will do is innoculate you even FURTHER from reality.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: