“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.
Start Thinking Right 