Posts Tagged ‘spread the wealth around’

Marxist – Yes, I Said MARXIST – Obama Demands We ‘Go Forward Towards A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared’

August 14, 2012

For the record, any liberal who comments to this will be immediately confronted with my demand that he or she share their prosperity with me.

It’s the least you can do to not be an abject hypocrite weasel, after all.

Monday, August 13, 2012
Truly Terrifying Quote o’ the Day

No additional setup is required:

Obama: “A New Vision Of An America In Which Prosperity Is Shared”

“Too many folks still don’t have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?” President Obama asked at a fundraiser in Chicago on Sunday.

Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared?” Obama asked. “Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in the mess in the first place?”

“I believe we have to go forward,” Obama said. “I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try. That’s what’s at stake in November. That’s what is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States of America.”

“Shared prosperity” is collectivism. Statism. Marxism. It means taking from those who produce goods and services to fund those who don’t, which is certainly outside any legitimate function of government under the United States Constitution.

I wouldn’t be all that concerned except… collectivism has failed every time it’s ever been tried in all of human history, from Plato’s Republic to the Soviet Union. It leads to despotism and tyranny, as surely as night follows day.

Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

Just remember, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”  That’s why Obama can take your profits that ought to be going to your family and your children and redistribute them to somebody who will vote for him.

Obama has said we need to “spread the wealth around.”  If you listen to the man talk, I defy you to explain to me how Barry Hussein could possibly refute the central economic statement of Marxism:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx

Obama IS a Marxist.  That is simply a fact of understanding what words mean.

Another thing is that while Obama says, ” I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper,” this very same hypocrite who mouths those words is literally allowing his OWN BROTHER to suffer in squalor.  And the demonstrable truth is that Obama DOESN’T care about his brother; all he cares about is accumulating the same sort of raw government power over a people that Marxists have ALWAYS sought to accumulate.  This man who cares NOTHING about his very own brother while saying, “I am my brother’s keeper” for mass consumption wants his liberal ideology and his Democrat Party to be able to decide who wins and who loses, to be able to dictate who is rewarded and who is punished.  That’s all he cares about.  And if he can drag America across that threshold that is all she wrote.

But let’s get beneath even that level: Obama says, “I am my brother’s keeper.”  And that’s fine as long as it is Obama deciding as an individual to do more for his brother (which in fact he has refused to do).  But what Obama then does is a bait-and-switch: he says, “I am my brother’s keeper because I am going to force YOU to pay for my keeping of my brother.”  Understand that while Obama demands the erection of a Marxist-style State that seizes the wealth of others and redistributes it according to political ideology, Obama himself gave less than 1 percent of his own wealth to charity before he announced he was going to run for president.

“I am my brother’s keeper” is a statement of an individual INDIVIDUALLY accepting responsibility out of his own or her own wealth and making the CHOICE to give.  But Obama cynically and deceitfully uses the phrase to try to justify a big government State that directly attacks the very religious system that he uses to justify his powergrab: Barack Obama is responsible for 54.5 million abortions in America since 1973; Barack Obama is responsible for the attack on biblical marriage; Barack Obama is imposing something the Bible literally calls an “abomination” onto society; Barack Obama is at war with the Catholic Church.

The same cynical, dishonest man who mocks the Bible proceeds to use it to justify his government takeover and his confiscation of the money that people worked hard to EARN:

If we’re not supposed to use the Bible to justify government policy, then why the hell did you do it, Barry Hussein???  But of course what you do is exploit the Bible whenever it is convenient for YOU while denouncing anyone who uses the Bible as that Bible actually teaches.

For the record, North Korea is dark at night – as in dark the way it was in the damn STONE AGE – because its people bought this same sort of crap that Obama is blathering.

Advertisements

Democrat Party Not Just Marxists, They Are Dishonest, Stupid Marxists

July 20, 2011

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his means.”

That’s a much more concise statement of a certain economic and political philosophy than Obama’s “I just want you to be clear – it’s not that I want to punish your success – I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you – that they’ve got a chance at success too….  And I do believe for folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s things are slow and she can barely make the rent…  “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.”

And it’s similarly a lot more concise than his recent statement: “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.”

But it’s the same exact stuff and it comes from the same exact source.

And, for the record, that source behind “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his means” is Marxist communism.  That statement above came from Karl Marx himself and summarizes the basic economic principle of a communist economy.

And Democrats are either too fundamentally stupid or too fundamentally dishonest (or both) to recognize and affirm their socialism.  Personally, I think it’s both.

There is another belief that is common to virtually all Democrats that is a likewise central defining tenet of Marxism; and that is the notion that the government basically owns all it’s people’s wealth and bascially graciously allows people to keep a certain amount (with the rest going to the State).  An example of this mindset was the oft-repeated Democrat claim that the cost of keeping the Bush tax cuts for “the rich” was widely reported as around $700 billion (over 10 years).

I wrote about that at some length (pointing out the pure socialist origins of the mindset), and included a statement by Brit Hume that is worth repeating:

The running argument over extending the Bush tax cuts may come to nothing if Congress decides to go home in just three weeks, but it has been a revealing exchange nonetheless. The president’s call for extending the cuts for middle class taxpayers is an acknowledgment that President Bush did not just cut taxes for the rich as Democrats are fond of claiming. He cut them for all taxpayers.

Administration officials keep saying it’s a bad idea to keep the cuts in place for wealthier taxpayers because it would cost $700 billion in lost revenue over 10 years. What they don’t say is that keeping them for the middle class which they now support would cost about three times that much.

Still, the president’s position means he agrees with Republicans that raising people’s taxes in the midst of a flagging economy is a bad idea. But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.

This sense of the primacy of government is reflected in the high percentage of stimulus funds used to bail out broke localities and protect the jobs of government workers. Democrats are proving once again that they are indeed the party of government. Americans think government is important, too. They just don’t think financing it takes priority over all else — Bret.

As I point out in my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues,” the same study that argued that “tax cuts for the rich” “COST” the government $700 billion ALSO argue that keeping tax cuts for the middle class “cost” the government $3 TRILLION.  Which is to say that it is INCREDIBLY dishonest and deceitful to pass off the arguments that Democrats routinely pass off.  With the help of a remarkably TASS-like American mainstream media, for what that’s worth.

I also document in that article that basically half of the American people now pay NO federal income tax at ALL.  Which, along with the demogogic rhetoric that “the rich need to pay their fair share” when the top 2% of Americans already pay 40% of the federal income taxes, is pure distilled Marxist class-warfare demagoguery.

Not only are Democrats greedy – which they routinely accuse the rich of being for wanting to keep money that DEMOCRATS want to take away – but they are thieves, too.  They are greedy, dishonest Marxist bureaucrats who want to take what is not theirs and piss it away on self-serving pet boondoggles that will benefit them politically.  A different way of putting it is that they want to seize resources from the job creators and piss it away.  They want to take money away from job creators who would invest in the private economy and use that money to purchase votes for their political campaigns.

[Update]: I hadn’t even published this article (I actually wrote it to this point on the 17th), and I already just received some powerful support for my main point.  Steve Wynn – who has described himself as a “Democrat businessman” who supported Harry Reid’s reelection campaign and who has a liberal activist for a wife – had this to say about Barack Obama and his policies:

And I’m saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the  next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate.  Regulations coming from left and right.  A President that seems, you know — that keeps using that word redistribution.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe’s ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest, they’re holding too much money.  You know, we haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.

“Pure socialism,” for what it’s worth, is “communism.”

The shoe fits.  So let’s put it on their feet (i.e. like “concrete shoes”).

Unless the American people want communism, they should reject Barack Hussein Obama and they should abandon the Democrat Party.

Home Depot CEO Says Obama An Airheaded Academic Who Demonizes Real-World Job Creators

September 20, 2010

Flopping Aces got all their video from Townhall.  I got all the quotes from the following interview from Flopping Aces.

Go to either site to watch the videos of the interview.

CNBC’s Greg Hengler said that Home Depot CEO Bernie Marcus

“…may have been the best defense of small business, and the most important attack on the Obama administration all year.  Marcus knows a little something about small business, because his business – Home Depot – was once a small business before it became a very BIG business. Home Depot employs 320,000 people, so Mr. Marcus knows a few things about job creation.

Bernie Marcus had the following broadside blast against the administration that he clearly views as ruining America and ruining the US economy:

Now you take some of the people the President surrounded himself with, now think about it a second, they’re all academics…most of them…I mean all of them, they come out of Harvard they come out of Yale. These guys are all on tenure. By the way they’re all on tenure. Tenure means they get paid whether they work or not, tenure means they are on insurance for life, tenure means they don’t ever have to worry about anything just because they were there for a number of yearsAmerica is not that way. America is not that way. And if the President got out of, you know, Washington, in his cloak as I talked about, and started moving around the peasants which is people like everybody else in the world except for Washington. Washington has their own insurance plan, they got their own pensions, they don’t even abide by their own rules they everybody else lives by.

This “tenured” Obama “Washington” crowd sounds profoundly un-American, for what it’s worth.  You get the sense they could have woke up in Moscow, circa 1950, and fit in with the commissars and their never-once-succeeding five year plans just fine.

And Bernie Marcus speaks with unforked tongue when he accuses the whole Obama administration of being a bunch of common-senseless eggheads with no actual private sector experience whatsoever:

You can see why an incredibly successful CEO who’s actually DONE SOMETHING to create real jobs in the real world would be rather pissed off at the two-years’-worth of Obama’s demonizing the job creators of the business world.

Bernie Marcus continues, apologizing to a president who appears to despise actual job creation for his record of actual job creation:

Marcus – And when I talk to people who are creating jobs today…these are not villains. These are not monsters. They’re not like…

Kernan – And you think they are being portrayed that way?

Marcus – Oh, there is no question about it.

Kernan – How many employees does Home Depot have?

Marcus – They got about 320,000

Kernan – So you, Arthur and Ken are directly or indirectly responsible for 300,000 jobs?

Marcus – Yeah, we’re monsters and we’re disgusting human beings and I recognize that and I apologize to America right now, I’m sorry that I made wealth and I’m sorry that I’m creating jobs.

Damn right they’re monsters.  Tax those rich bastards.  Tax them until they fire all their American workers and ship those jobs overseas in countries so evil that they actually allow people and businesses to keep more of what they earn.  Tax them until the American economy crashes.  Tax them until the USA goes the way of the Dodo bird.

And then vote for Obama to preside over the ruined formerly great nation he “fundamentally transformed.”

China has ten times – TEN TIMES – the growth of the United States, while having lower tax rates.  And what do Democrats do?  Try to raise our tax rates even more.  And Democrats are employing Marxist class warfare and “spread the wealth around” redistributionist demagoguery to try to get their way.  What is amazing is that the Democrat Party in the United States is literally more communist than the Communist Party in China.

Jobs today are global; they can go anywhere on earth.  What American needs to do is respond to the countries’ that are taking our jobs away from us.  Which is why we need to lower the costs of investing in and doing business in America.  Democrats are demanding that we become less and less competitive even as they pursue a strategy of demonizing those who would make America MORE competitive.

Obama Demoagogues Boehner While Mainstream Media Misrepresents Him

September 15, 2010

I’ve already written (and still more here) about increasing numbers of Democrats doing a tacit “credit Bush” move – as opposed to the mindless failure of responsibility inherent in the “blame Bush” garbage – by demanding that ALL of the Bush tax cuts be extended at least temporarily.

So you’ll have to forgive me for changing the emphasis of the following excellent article, even as I preserve its substance.

Yes, Democrats are increasingly starting to change their tune on the Bush tax cuts.  Previously, they were blaming Bush’s tax cuts for the economic collapse; now growing numbers of them are saying they should be extended.  But let’s not forget to examine the classless, tasteless, and clueless demagoguery that is daily spit out of the Obama White House.

From HotAir:

Rank and file Dems to Pelosi: extend all the Bush tax cuts
posted at 2:13 pm on September 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

After John Boehner reiterated his call to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts expiring at the end of the year, the White House once again tried hammering him as an extremist looking to protect the rich at the expense of the middle class.  House Democrats will undercut that messaging with their own call to put off tax hikes for the next couple of years.  In a letter circulating on Capitol Hill and reviewed by Politico, Blue Dogs and other Democrats tell Nancy Pelosi that this is no time to raise taxes or to extend the uncertainty:

POLITICO has obtained a draft of a letter from rank-and-file lawmakers to Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer urging them not to let tax rates rise for Americans at the highest income levels.

“We believe in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain things as they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to plan and make sound budget decisions,” the House members write in a letter that was being circulated for signatures on Friday and is expected to be delivered today or Tuesday.

Reps. Jim Matheson (Utah), Glenn Nye (Virginia), Melissa Bean (Ill.) and Gary Peters (Mich.) drafted the letter and are working to gather support, mostly from the moderate Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions, for at least a temporary extension of the rates for top income earners as well as those in the lower brackets.

This comes at the same time that Boehner’s remarks have stirred controversy — although largely from the absence of context.  The media originally reported them as a retreat back to the White House petition.  Instead, Boehner said that he would vote to approve a bill that only extended the middle-class portion of the tax cuts if that was all that was offered.  Boehner scoffed at the notion that he was holding those tax-cuts extensions hostage, which a moment’s thought would prove correct.  Pelosi has a 77-seat majority in the House, and can pass anything Democrats want.

Clearly, some Democrats are now wondering if they want a class war right before the election.  That kind of strategy plays well in districts like Pelosi’s, but is falling flat in the rest of the country.  Democrats played that card in 2006 and 2008, and after four years of control in Congress, it’s no longer a trump card.  Democrats need to find a way to generate growth, and the only way to do that is to get people with capital to put it to work — which the coming tax hikes will prevent.

The Obama administration is doing its best to portray Boehner as an extremist.  Unfortunately for Obama, his own party shows that it’s the White House on the extreme, pushing tax hikes in the middle of an economic stall.  It also points to a bigger problem with the strategy, which is that punching down below one’s weight is never a good idea.  Instead of marginalizing Boehner, the White House is practically lending him the bully pulpit by putting Boehner at the same level as the President.  That helps the GOP, because most of the electorate understands that tax hikes will be disastrous for the economy — and Obama doesn’t exactly have a track record of success that gives him the benefit of the doubt.

So Chris Boehner is saying that, as a principled conservative who believes in the radical premises that Americans actually deserve to keep more of the money that they earned, he wants tax cuts for everyone.  But if he can’t get tax cuts for everyone, he’ll vote to give tax cuts to as many people as he possibly can.

Versus Obama (i.e., Obama Akbar!!!), whose position is that he will screw every single American and screw the entire economy unless his Marxist class warfare system prevails.  Because, dammit, he wants to have all the centralized commissar power to “spread that wealth around.”

And Obama calls Boehner the “extremist.”

Meanwhile, the mainstream media is deceitfully misrepresenting Boehner’s principled position into some kind of retreat.

But here’s what Boehner said:

Boehner told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “If the only option I have is to vote for those at $250,000 and below, of course I’m going to do that.”

But, he said, “I’m going to do everything I can to fight to make sure that we extend the current tax rates for all Americans.”

And, he said, “I’ve been making the point now for months that we need to extend all the current rates for all Americans if we want to get our economy going again and we want to get jobs in America.”

I know, I know, what an “extremist.”  And, of course, Obama – who will blow up the entire country if he doesn’t get absolutely everything he wants – what a “moderate.”

And, of course, the media is clearly accurately representing Boehner’s view as a “retreat.”  Because, as any fool (and only fools, fwiw) knows, no conservative wants tax cuts for the middle class.  They just want tax cuts for the rich.  Because conservatives are evil and they hate the middle class.

When Mark Twain said, “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get it’s boots on,” he could have been talking about the American mainstream media.  Because that seems to be their standard operating procedure.  It is most certainly Barry Hussein’s.

I have written about the fact that tax cuts for “the rich” are the best way to increase both jobs and government revenues.  The arguments are on our side.  And in fact rather than being “extremist,” the position of favoring lower taxes for ALL Americans is the reasonable one we can take.  I hope you take time to read that.

The American people are now recognizing that Obama was fundamentally wrong about his stimulus; he was profoundly wrong about his ObamaCare; he was flagrantly wrong about his cap-and-trade system; he was terribly wrong with his green jobs nonsense; he was terrible wrong about immigration issues and the Ground Zero mosque; he endangered America by being completely wrong on Iran; and now he couldn’t be more wrong about his tax policy.

Where has this clown been right about anything?

Obama has said in his usual demagogic way, “If I said the sky was blue, they’d say no.”  The problem with Obama’s analogy is that if he said the sky was blue, it would probably be nighttime and the sky would actually be black.  Look at the sky at 2 AM and tell me it looks blue to you.  Obama began his presidency with a lie, PROMISING he wouldn’t run in 2008.  And not only has he never told the truth since, but he has proven that he is disastrously incompetent, as well.  The other problem with Obama is he’s not saying things like “the sky is blue” that everyone can reasonably agree to; he’s saying extremist, radical things that will implode this country.  If Obama would only pursue semi-reasonable policies, he’d get support from Republicans.

Let’s realize that Obama is a demagogue, a liar, an incompetent, and unfit to be president.  Let’s do an even better job ignoring him.  Let’s realize that if the mainstream media reports something, it is very likely at least mostly untrue.  Let’s realize that cutting taxes for everyone – especially the people who actually create jobs in this country – is far and away the best path to prosperity.  And let’s realize that we need conservative policies if we’re going to get out of this hole and move forward

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

September 8, 2010

We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again.  As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.  And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit.  The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth.  Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.

Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.

The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes

Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.

Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. […]

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”

tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.  The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.  A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer.  It is redistribution of wealth.  It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Do you notice that “to” in the middle?  It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.”  It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.”  And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.  And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

That’s the first point.  Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.”  And the media helps them get away with it.

The Falsehood That Cutting Taxes For the Rich – But NOT The Other Classes – Contributes To the Deficit

Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.

Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit.  Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???

Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit?  So why aren’t Democrats going after them?

Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit?  The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007.  That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.

Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit?  And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit?  Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?

Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire.  And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person.  If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference?  Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”

Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended.  And that sounds bad.  But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period.  If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion?  And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street?  And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].

Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason.  And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone.  And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.

Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits.  Democrats do.  Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.

Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?

Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.”  But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing.  Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this.  He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all.  Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.

And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.

And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism.  Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.

[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].

For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long.  Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class.  And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes.  In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized.  We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem.  The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”?  Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued.  As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership.  And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce.  “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.”  So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people.  Especially during a recession [End update].

We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.

Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.

The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie.  And a Marxist-based lie at that.

[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%.  They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS.  When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money.  They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed.  When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing.  If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

Some articles to read:

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

[End Update, 12/15/10]

Obama Shows Off Anti-Capitalist Pro-Marxist Side – AGAIN

May 1, 2010

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).

And the primary figure behind the current Goldman Sachs scandal is a LIBERAL bagman who supported liberal Democrat Charles Schumer.

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?

Al Sharpton: ‘The American Public Overwhelmingly Voted For Socialism When They Elected President Obama’

March 23, 2010

This is an article about raving moral idiocy.

What follows will be Al Sharpton’s version of what Adolf Hitler basically told his people: “Look, you voted for me in 1933.  You made me your Chancellor, and then you made me your Fuhrer.  So the fact that I wrote about killing all the Jews in my Mein Kampf while on the campaign trail to absolute power means that YOU voted to kill all the Jews.  And therefore you are now duty bound to round up as many Jews as you can find.”

You may not like my analogy regarding Hitler and Jews, but it is exactly the same as what Al Sharpton is essentially saying about Obama and ObamaCare.

There’s not a single major polling organization that has found that the people want ObamaCare.  And most polls have support for ObamaCare in the 30s, with basically 2-1 margins against it.  Here’s an example from CNN’s poll out yesterday:

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that 59 percent of those surveyed opposed the bill, and 39 percent favored it. All of the interviews were conducted before the House voted Sunday night, but the contents of the bill were widely known.

In addition, 56 percent said the bill gives the government too much involvement in health care; 28 percent said it gives the government the proper role and 16 percent said it leaves Washington with an inadequate role.

On the question of costs, 62 percent said the bill increases the amount of money they personally spend on health care; 21 percent said their costs would remain the same and 16 percent said they would decrease.

That matches the 20-point margin from the Fox News poll, which had the margin at 55% against versus only 35% for ObamaCare.

We’ve had three statewide elections during the ObamaCare debate.  All three states had voted heavily for Obama; and all three states elected Republicans over Democrats.  Even Camelot voted Republican, as Massachusetts voters elected a man who campaigned to be the 41st vote against ObamaCare to replace Ted Kennedy as their senator.

But none of that matters for Al Sharpton.  We voted for our Fuhrer on November 2008.  And the will of the Fuhrer is therefore ergo sum the will of the people.

Here’s Al Sharpton’s moral “logic”:

“I think that the president and Nancy Pelosi get credit,” Sharpton said. “I think this began the transforming of the country the way the president had promised. This is what he ran on.”

And if that transformation is socialism, then so be it, he explained. That is what the American public “overwhelmingly” voted for.

“First of all, then we have to say the American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama,” Sharpton said. “Let’s not act as though the president didn’t tell the American people – the president offered the American people health reform when he ran. He was overwhelmingly elected running on that and he has delivered what he promised.”

Despite polling showing otherwise leading up to the momentous occasion of the vote on health care reform, the claim this goes against the wishes of the American people is false based on the 2008 presidential election.

I don’t understand Republicans saying this is against the will of the American people,” Sharpton said. “They voted for President Obama who said this was going to be one of the first things he would do and he has done the first hurdle of that tonight. So I think the American people was very loud and clear. This was not some concept the president introduced after he won. He ran on this and the American people won tonight because they got finally something from a president they voted for.”

Let me go back to my Hitler analogy.  It is my contention that, even if I had been fool enough to vote for Hitler in 1933, I had absolutely  no duty whatsoever to support his policy of killing Jews, even though I should have known all about his promise to do so when I voted for him.  Quite the contrary: I argue that I would have had a moral duty to oppose Hitler from carrying out his “final solution” policy, whether I had voted for him or not.

It is not only a bogus argument that Sharpton is making; it is a fundamentally immoral argument.

In one way, and one way only, I can’t disagree with Sharpton.  Barack Obama is a socialist – that’s what conservatives have been pointing out all along.  Sharpton now acknowledges that, but Democrats were falling all over themsleves to not only deny but denounce the charge during the campaign.

Now, Obama’s socialism is obvious to all, and Sharpton is saying, “You bought it, now you have to drive it and like it.”

The thing is, Al Sharpton fundamentally misunderstands a democratic republic.  In Marxist countries, you vote for your leader, and then that leader uses that vote to remain in power forever.  But in direct contradiction to those type of states, in America you have the right to change your mind.  You have the right to say, “I didn’t sign up for this.”  You have the right to say, “This isn’t what I voted for.”  You have the right to turn against the ideology, the policies, and even the person you voted for.

Al Sharpton’s “America” really looks more like Venezuela.  And Barack Obama should be president for life.  After all, didn’t we vote for him once?

Al Sharpton’s “America” is also a very hypocritical place.  Remember Iraq?  Americans – who voted for George Bush and even re-elected him – were once highly favorable of him, and supported the war in Iraq to numbers that dwarfed any support Obama ever had for ObamaCare.  But that didn’t stop Al Sharpton from railing against it, did it?

Suddenly, under Sharpton’s incredibly hypocritical vision, Republicans have utterly forfeited the right to oppose that Sharpton himself never seemed to feel he had forfeited when Bush was in power.

Now, I’m glad that Al Sharpton has finally openly affirmed that Barack Obama is a socialist.  I knew that was the case since March 2008, when I discovered that Obama had for 23 years been going to a “church” that spewed Marxist theology.  Sharpton is right about Obama’s socialism; but he’s wrong about America, he’s wrong about our political process, and he’s wrong about the American people.

Sharpton is right: Obama DID openly reveal his socialism.  But you had to read between the lines, because Obama would say one thing, and then say something else that was clearly in direct contradiction with the first thing he said.  And he did that over, and over, and over again.

Obama appeared to an audience in San Francisco and said of Pennsylvanians, “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  It was hard-core Marxism, right out of Karl Marx’s “religion is the opiate of the masses”, except with a specifically anti-American twist.

He told another San Francisco audience that he planned to destroy America’s most plentiful source of energy (coal) with the power of government, bankrupt private coal producing businesses, and force the price of energy to “necessarily skyrocket.”

Nothing socialist about that one, eh?

He told Joe the plumber that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.”  Obama said, “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.” And you just can’t get away from that “socialism” word.  It comes right out of Karl Marx’s “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” playbook.

Al Sharpton is right.  It was socialism.  And Americans should have recognized that.

But many Americans didn’t.  Because Obama was saying all kinds of other stuff.  Because the Obama campaign and the mainstream media that was just spewing propaganda kept saying, “It’s not socialism!  Socialism, you say?  That’s outrageous!!!”

And too many Americans said, “Okay.  The New York Times says he’s wonderful.  He wouldn’t lie.”

But he DID lie.  And it was the New York Times that provided the core promise that Obama broke into a thousand cynical, disingenuous pieces.

I write about Obama’s biggest and most cynical lie in an article entitled, “Obama Promise to Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie.”  I provide a New York Times article that begins:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But he never even came close to healing anything.  He pushed a radical agenda, and demonized his opposition, right from the get-go.  Instead of reaching out to Republicans who were opposed to the slant of what turned out to be the gigantic stimulus boondoggle, Obama didn’t reach out: instead he said, “I won.”  Was THAT moving beyond the divisive politics of Washington???  Did that bring Democrats, independents, and Republicans together???

Not even close.

Do you call ramming a bill that will fundamentally transform our health care system, our society, and our very way of life on a narrow hard-core partisan vote by a nasty reconciliation process “moving beyond divisive politics”?

When John McCain spoke out about the incredibly corrupt process the Democrats had used to buy Democrat votes for ObamaCare behind closed doors, Obama told McCain, “We’re not campaigning anymore.  The election’s over.”

Excuse me?  Obama’s CALLING THAT DAMN SUMMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS AN ACT OF CAMPAIGNING.  And John McCain was not talking about the election; he was talking about the incredibly cynical process that was crafting a terrible health care bill.

But you see in Obama the same arrogance of power that Al Sharpton is trying to describe, that, “I am your elected Fuhrer and you WILL bow down and obey.”

Neither Obama or Sharpton ever gave Bush or HIS election (or re-election) one iota of the fealty they now demand Republicans and opponents must give to Obama.  It’s just an amazing act of hypocrisy.

In point of fact, the man who violated his CORE PROMISE – according to the New York Times – is now THE MOST POLARIZING PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

Allow me to wrap up: Is Obama a socialist?  yes, Al Sharpton is quite correct that Barack Obama told us all about his socialism.  Does that mean that we now must bow down before the Obama agenda?  No, nothing could be further from the truth – and the very fact that Sharpton thinks so should mark him as an anathema to the American political process.  Did Obama fundamentally lie and misrepresent himself to the American people?  Absolutely.  And do the American people now have a right to turn against Obama and his socialist policies?

To quote Sarah Palin, “You betcha we do!”

Firsthand Account That Obama Was A Hard-Core Marxist In College

February 24, 2010

The lamestream dinosaur media is constantly out there telling us that only whackjobs ever even consider that Barack Obama might be a socialist.  They put up a straw man: “He’s not trying to take your house from you,” as though there is no such thing as even a single degree between hard-core Marxism and free market capitalism.

For the record, there is.  And Obama is waaaaaaayyyyy toward the side of that political spectrum that is taking this country toward socialism.

Obama has taken over banks and car companies, and wants to take over our health care system.  He keeps propping things up when free market capitalism wants to let the system bottom out so it can rebound and reach equilibrium again.  He believes in the redistribution of wealth so he can “spread the wealth around.”  He believes in class warfare.  He believes that private businesses are greedy and evil.

And 77% of investors in American businesses that create jobs rightly believe that Obama is “anti-business.”

Dr. John C. Drew has his own website, and has posted numerous articles and Youtubed interviews which further describe his recollections of a very Marxist Barack Obama.

The article that follows should add some meat to the Obama statement that:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

I didn’t carefully choose those radical leftists and communists as my friends.  Did YOU?

Obama, a College Marxist?
Deborah Lambert, February 22, 2010

Until now, precious little information has come to light about President Obama’s youthful political views. That may change as disclosures by former political science professor Dr. John C. Drew eventually surface in the mainstream press.

During an evening he spent with Obama in late 1980, Drew, a former Marxist-turned-conservative-Republican, recalled during an interview on Breitbart TV’s “The B-cast” that the young Obama was not only a passionate Marxist, but a Marxist-Leninist, devoted to the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system in America.

The meeting occurred in late December, 1980 when Drew, a 1979 Occidental College graduate in his second year of Cornell University grad school, visited his girlfriend, still an Occidental student, who shared a political theory class with Obama.

Drew recalled that Obama, then a college sophomore, showed up in a BMW with his closest friend Mohammed Hasan Chandoo, and “we all went out to dinner, partied and drank, smoked cigarettes—and we did what young Marxists do—we basically argued politics.”

Before the get-together, his then-girlfriend described Obama as “one of us.” What she meant by that was that “he was on our team . . . a blood brother . . .a fellow revolutionary,” said Drew.

As a serious Marxist revolutionary himself in those days, Drew said that as soon as he met young Barack, he realized that this radical college sophomore wasn’t just “dabbling in Marxism . . . he was a Marxist-Leninist dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist system.”

Drew says on his website (www.anonymouspoliticalscientist.blogspot.com) that his “most vivid memory of Obama was the way he strongly argued a rather simple-minded version of Marxist theory,” while he (Drew) had moved on to a more pessimistic graduate school view that true revolution would never happen in this country.

Drew’s meeting with the young Obama occurred shortly after he experienced his first taste of campus notoriety when publicly speaking out on the anti-apartheid issue and co-founding the anti-apartheid group that is mentioned in Dreams of My Father.

During their meeting, Drew recalls that Obama believed that “America was definitely the enemy, and American elites were the enemy, and whatever America was doing was definitely wrong and bad. He thought that perhaps the Soviet Union was misunderstood, and it was doing a better job for its people than most people realized,” Drew noted in a Newsmax interview.

Although Drew did his senior honors thesis at Occidental on Marxist Economics, his doctoral research at Cornell in 1984 triggered a move to the political right when he realized the fallacy of the Marxist class struggle argument.

However, when Drew crossed the ideological divide from Marxist to conservative Republican, it may have made his academic career a bit more challenging.

As an assistant political science professor at Williams College from 1986 – 1989, Drew was one of three registered Republicans on the faculty. Armed with his newly adopted belief system, Drew says he complained to the powers-that-be about the school’s affirmative action policies that favored less qualified African-American faculty candidates over white candidates, saying that these policies “took away the honor of being a Williams College professor.”

Now a grant-writing consultant in Laguna Niguel, California, Drew says that his meeting with Obama some 30 years ago provided useful evidence of why he was able to win the trust and support of people like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Alice Palmer. He believes that Obama “never surrendered that tough, Marxist socialist ideology I saw in him as a sophomore at Occidental College.”

When Drew is asked why he took so long to go public with this story, he is quick to explain that although he tried to get the story out during the presidential campaign in 2008, no one in the media would touch it.

In fact, Drew says he was frustrated when he couldn’t get this information out during campaign season, since candidate Obama “was making it sound like people thought he was a socialist because he didn’t share his toys in kindergarten, but I thought he was a socialist because I’d seen him argue from a hard Marxist point of view.”

Obama’s career path was entirely predictable, according to Drew, who says the first logical career move for a revolutionary right out of college is to become a labor organizer or a community organizer. The second step is to become a college professor.

During his stint as a University of Chicago adjunct professor, Obama “was basically promoting the socialist revolution, saying that our Constitution promotes negative liberties but not the positive liberties of a society that advocates wealth distribution.”

Drew’s encounter with the future president nearly 30 years ago sheds some light on the young Obama’s political ideology, one of the many aspects of his life that has not undergone any serious scrutiny by the mainstream press. Drew regards his “15 minutes of fame” that began with a Newsmax interview in February, 2010 as an “opportunity to share what I know about the ‘red diaper’ ideology of the young Barack Obama.”

Saying that he would still be teaching in Massachusetts were it not for the liberal Democrats that control Williams College, Drew says he was pleased that Scott Brown was recently elected as the state’s newest senator, adding that his election “marks the end of the Obama revolution.”

Dr. Drew’s experience of Obama 30 years ago accurately reflects the course of Barack Obama’s life, both before and after that encounter.

My worldview was already fairly well established by the time I graduated from college.  Which is why the notion that Obama was a radical Marxist-Leninist in college, but he’s perfectly mainstream American in his values now just seems like a total load of crap to me.  And then you pair common-sense reality up with the fact that Obama was continuing to advocate Marxist notions even after he stopped being a student and started being a professor.

The same mainstream media that flew cross-country so they could dig through Sarah Palin’s garbage refused to look into Barack Obama’s record.

The media allowed Obama to be “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  But you can bet your bottom dollar (and like it or not you DID bet your bottom dollar when you voted for this guy) that he had his own views all along.

It’s Official: Democrats LOVE Their Socialism

February 11, 2010

So what do you say when you find out that 53% of Democrats and 61% of liberals are perfectly at home with socialism?

What do you say when you find out that 17% of RINO Republicans say they’re quite at home with the concept?

I reach for the nearest receptacle that can hold the entire contents of my stomach and hurl.

Redistribute that.

This is what socialism is according to Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

You likey?  Can I bring my family to live in your house, drive your car, and eat all your food?  I mean, I hope you won’t be one of those capitalist pigs and object to me bringing my welfare mom and our 19 snot-nosed kids to spread your wealth around.

There’s a pooh-pooing view that the people who said they were positive to “socialism” simply didn’t understand what the word meant.  On this view, of course, there are a lot of profoundly stupid people in this country – and the overwhelming majority of them are Democrats/liberals.  Take careful note that NONE of these stupid people are Sarah Palin supporters, who are smart enough to know a lot better.

As for me, I tend to take people seriously.  If they claim to be positive toward socialism, I take their words for it.

You might remember Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters using the “S” word and saying she wanted to socialize privately-owned businesses:

You might remember all the hullabaloo when Barack Obama was caricatured as the Joker with the word “socialism” attached to it:

(It wasn’t such a big deal when liberal Vanity Fair did the same thing to George Bush sans the socialism, but the left have always wholeheartedly embraced their hypocritical double standards).

Barack Obama got himself in trouble when he let the tiger out of the bag about how he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Joe the Plumber responded, “That sounds like socialism.”  Oh, how the Democrat spin doctors started to spin and spin and spin some more.  Obama isn’t a socialist, we were assured.  And my, my, anybody who thinks something like that is just talking crazy.

And then Obama got elected, Democrats passed Barry Hussein’s gigantic $3.27 trillion dollars “stimulus,” and the liberal Newsweek was triumphantly asserting:

It’s funny how we do this song and dance: oh, no, Democrats aren’t REALLY socialists!  How on earth can you possibly believe that?

Well, yes, they are.

And now we’ve got the polling results to prove it.

Bottom line: Barry Hussein and the Democrat Party are every single BIT as socialist as they think they can get away with in a nation that would hate socialism if they only had the first freaking clue about our history and about the history of socialism.  They are insinuating mega-doses of socialism into American life as we have never seen before in this country.  And if they thought they could impose more socialism on us, they would do it.  Period.

——————————————————————————————–

February 4, 2010
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
Majority of Americans positive on capitalism, entrepreneurs, free enterprise, and small business
by Frank Newport

“Democrats and Republicans agree in their ratings of several of the terms, but differ significantly in their ratings of others — in particular, capitalism, the federal government, and socialism.”

“Socialism” was one of seven terms included in a Jan. 26-27 Gallup poll. Americans were asked to indicate whether their top-of-mind reactions to each were positive or negative. Respondents were not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.

Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%).

Democrats and Republicans agree in their ratings of several of the terms, but differ significantly in their ratings of others — in particular, capitalism, the federal government, and socialism.

In similar fashion, there is little distinction across ideological groups — conservatives, moderates, and liberals — in the ratings of several of these terms, but more significant differences in response to others, such as big business, the federal government, and socialism.

These differences will be discussed in the sections that follow.

Socialism

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define “socialism” or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans’ reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them — an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to “socialism” across ideological and partisan groups:

  • A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
  • Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.

Capitalism

“Capitalism,” the word typically used to describe the United States’ prevailing economic system, generates positive ratings from a majority of Americans, with a third saying their reaction is negative.

As was the case with “socialism,” there are differences across population segments.

  • Republicans are significantly more positive than Democrats in their reactions to “capitalism,” although majorities of both groups have favorable opinions.
  • Opinions of the word by ideology are divided in an unusual, though modest, way. Conservatives have the highest positive image, followed by liberals. Moderates have somewhat lower positive ratings than either of these groups.

One might expect those with negative attitudes toward capitalism to be more likely than others to have positive attitudes toward socialism. That is indeed the case, but the difference in positive attitudes toward socialism between those with positive and those with negative attitudes toward capitalism is fairly modest: 33% vs. 43%, respectively.

Free Enterprise

Eighty-six percent of respondents rated the term “free enterprise” positively, giving it substantially more positive ratings than “capitalism.” Although in theory these two concepts are not precisely the same, they are in many ways functional equivalents. Yet, underscoring the conventional wisdom that words matter, the public clearly reacts differently to the two terms. Free enterprise as a concept rings more positively to the average American than does the term capitalism.

Strongly positive ratings of free enterprise are generally uniform across both partisan groups, and across the three ideological groups.

Small Business and Big Business

“Small business” is the most positively rated term of the seven included in the list, with a nearly universal positive rating of 95%.

In contrast, Americans were sharply divided when asked to react to the term “big business,” with 49% of respondents rating the term positively and 49% negatively.

This contrast in images, based on whether the adjective “small” or “big” is placed in front of “business,” confirms a number of previous Gallup findings. Americans have a strong tendency to react positively to “small” and negatively to “big” when it describes business entities.

There is remarkably little difference between Republicans and Democrats in their ratings of the images of small and big business. Both partisan groups are overwhelmingly positive about the former, and roughly half of both partisan groups rate the latter positively. The finding that Democrats and Republicans have roughly equal reactions to big business is significant given the usual assumption that Republicans are more sympathetic to large businesses and corporations than are Democrats. These data do not confirm that hypothesis at the rank-and-file level.

All three ideological groups rate small business very positively.

Big business is rated positively by 57% of conservatives. Less than half of both moderates (46%) and liberals (38%) have positive images of big business.

Entrepreneurs

Because “entrepreneurs” are usually by definition associated with start-ups of small businesses, it is not unexpected to find that the term generates nearly the same level of positive reaction as did the term small business.

And, as was the case for small business, there is little distinction in ratings of entrepreneurs across partisan or ideological groups.

The Federal Government

Americans’ reactions to the term “the federal government” are similar to those for “big business,” with about half rating the term positively and half negatively. However, while there are only minimal partisan differences in reactions to “big business,” there are substantial differences in reactions to the federal government, which may reflect the current partisan control of the White House and Congress.

  • Democrats are much more positive about the federal government than are Republicans.
  • Liberals are over twice as likely as conservatives to have a positive image of the federal government, with reactions of moderates in between those of these two groups.

Bottom Line

As most politicians and many in business have learned, the choice of words to describe a concept or a policy can often make a substantial difference in the public’s reaction. The current research confirms that assumption.

“Socialism” is not a completely negative term in today’s America. About a third of Americans respond positively when they hear the term. Some of this reaction may reflect unusual or unclear understandings of what socialism means. Reaction to the term is not random, however, as attested by the finding that positive images are significantly differentiated by politics and ideology.

It is apparent that “free enterprise” evokes more positive responses than “capitalism,” despite the apparent similarity between the two terms.

President Barack Obama made frequent positive references to small business in his recent State of the Union address, perhaps aware of the very positive associations Americans have with that term. In particular, this research underscores the fact that Americans’ image of business can vary substantially, depending on whether it is described as small or big. Along these same lines, it is perhaps not surprising to find that entrepreneurs are held in high esteem by Americans.

The finding that Americans have mixed reactions to the term “the federal government” is not new. Much previous research has shown that at this point in history, a majority of Americans are not enamored with the federal government, particularly the legislative branch.

How Much Have Obamas Spent On Clothes?

October 24, 2008

It’s kind of funny to me.  When John McCain and Sarah Palin point out that Barack Obama “palled around” with terrorist William Ayers (“partnered with” is a better way to put it), the all-over-the-air and way-over-the-top Democratic talking point was that this was an attempt to take attention away from the “real issues.”  Journalists told us that with so many issues of profound importance facing the country, focusing on something as trivial as a terrorist buddy was ridiculous.  And then the “bombshell revelation” that the McCain-Palin campaign might have spent $150,000 outfitting Sarah Palin and upgrading her image for the campaign hits like some major scandal.  And THAT’S relevant!

You don’t hear the drive-by mainstream media condescendingly pointing out how irrelevant Sarah Palin’s wardrobe is, or how this is a clear attempt to distract the public from the damage created by the “Joe the Plumber” situation.  Nope.  The media would never dare apply the same talking points to Republicans that they routinely use to justify and support Democrats.  Goebbels never turned on Hitler, you know.

In any event, I read a few condescending stories from the leftist media (such as the Huffington Post), but couldn’t find any reference to what Barack or Michelle Obama spent on their clothes.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that they’ve both spent a ton of dough.  The Politico article says that, “A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.”  But keep in mind that every penny of McCain campaign money is accounted for due to public financing regulations, whereas we have no idea where more than $200 million of Obama’s money came from.  And we also come to find out that designers have given wardrobes to Democratic candidates in order to garner publicity, which itself amounts to a violation of campaign laws.

Hillary Clinton’s famous pantsuits costs more than $6,000 each – and  she had a LOT of pantsuits.  And it turns out she probably didn’t pay anything for them, according to the woman who designed them for her:

One of Mrs. Clinton’s famous political fashion designers, Susanna Chung Forest, who designed Hillary’s pantsuits, which, that’s gotta boost the resume. She says that it would be unusual for a candidate as famous as Sarah Palin to need to buy clothes at all, meaning most of these women are not buying their clothes, they’re given to them by the designers in order to get publicity, just as Hollywood starlets on the red carpet before the Emmys and the Oscars, those gowns are all donated.

We also find out if we dig around long enough out that Obama is getting his suits at Barney’s, and that Michelle wears Maria Pinto, Valentino, and other top fashion brands.  And we learn that people who live in designer glass-houses shouldn’t throw diamonds:

The current issue of Harper’s Bazaar notes that the Democratic presidential candiate’s wife wears Valentino, among others. Looks like when the Obamas say “spread the wealth around,” they mean at top shelf department stores.

I’m not outraged at this. The pressure of being in the public eye is understandable. What’s disturbing is the double standard. Michelle Obama gets hailed by the fashionistas while Palin gets crucified and mocked by the fashion police.

These same liberals who are now appalled at the Palin shopping spree are the same ones that thought it shallow and superficial to discuss Newsweek’s obvious recent cheap shot cover of Sarah Palin because we have more important fish to fry. Where are these people now to shout that this issue is trivial? And how do they manage to get so fired up about Palin’s appearance all of sudden?

This latest attack on Sarah Palin is geared to undermine her as a real “woman of the people.”  But the reality is that it shows that she IS a woman of the people.  She didn’t have the kind of clothing that would withstand the unrelenting glare of the national spotlight.  How many “women of the people” do?  This woman who sold the governor’s private jet, got rid of the governor’s limosine, fired the governor’s chef, etc. clearly IS a “woman of the people” whether the McCain campaign upgrades her image or not.  And given the fact that the Obama campaign has easily outspent the McCain campaign 4-1, what does it matter that the McCain campaign believed that upgrading the image of an attractive candidate was money poorly spent?

The McCain campaign has reported that the clothes will be sold off and the proceeds donated to charity after the election.

Now let’s get back to the serious issues of the campaign, such as how Barack Obama is a socialist who will keep Joe the Plumber from being able to buy a small business so Obama can “spread the wealth around.”