Investors Business Daily Opinion Piece on Obama

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by retired, Jul 31, 2008.

  1. retired

    retired Guest

    Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism

    Election '08: Before friendly audiences, Barack Obama speaks passionately about something called "economic justice." He uses the term obliquely, though, speaking in code — socialist code.

    "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.

    A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk.
    Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.
  2. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Politicians of whatever stripe never call something by their true name. To do so in way to many cases would tip one's hand so so speak and the public backlash would turn to a whirlwind. For a politician to in a real sense invoke such honesty ends up being a death nail. Examples to varying degrees would be Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kucinich and even a Cynthia McKinney. Now granted the beliefs vary just among those 4 alone and I think everyone here will also in varying degrees disagree and in some cases disagree with certain policies but as a general rule, these folks and others like them now and before have been upfront with their ideas and what did it get them? Backburnered even in many cases by the ruling 2 parties and their lackies in crime, the mainstream media.

    Other more mainstream and accepted candidates come along but they hire consults to parse and nuiance ever term and idea is such a way as to hide so to speak, real intent. If you ever wonder why people support a candidate on the belief that they will do this or that but then once in office seem to go in another direction entirely and sometimes in a very different direction, IMO it proves their ability to control words and meaning to the people hearing (what some call spin if you will) is very good and very powerful. Why is it now that many liberal democrats look back at Clinton and feel betrayed say in areas like NAFTA or in regards to unionism? Why do fiscal and limited gov't conservative feel betrayed by Bush who in 2000' spoke well against gov't growth and even the concept of nationbuilding?

    Bush used the term "compassionate conservatism" to try and soften but in reality, it was a cover for a very similar "statism" that the current "other side of the isle" is trying to sell and that is a "fiscal liberal" with talk of spending restraint and the need to balance the budget and stop the federal borrowing binge. One might also take the time to investigate the terms "third wave" and third way" to understand these conflicting ideals in name only. Just don't look at the actions of Congress as these illusions will quickly make you reaize these guys are just as much the illusionist as one Criss Angel, the Mindfreak. At least Criss is honest about who and what he is and even will show how he does some of the basic illusions of mind trickery.

    As to the last paragraph concerning the perfect storm of statism forming, you are dead on the money. However, the statism and the stamping out of what little liberties as indivduals we have left, especially in the market place are more and more disappearing. I contend that the mainstream left (neo-liberal) and the mainstream right (neo-conservative) are about taking the actions of previous adminstrations and using them not as a ceiling but rather as a floor. Every adminstration (especially in the 20th century), whether democrat or republican has used the power gains of the previous version to build upon for themselves and thus the trend is future adminstrations will do the same. It was the Clinton adminstration by the hand of nefarious think tank power brokers who propelled the idea of regime change in Iraq in 1998' with the Iraq Liberation Act so the construct for the actual removal of Saddam was laid out in the previous adminstration. Bush or more so many of his underlying with other agendas, used this "floor" to propell the agenda and to raise the bar if you will for future generations. Where did the whole idea that Saddam had WMD come from? Look for the floor!

    President Carter instituted the Carter Doctrine pertaining to the Persian Gulf region and covert connections made during his watch that again was used as "floor" for the next generation (Reagan) to advance gov't action to a new level. Who first said, "make the world safe for democracy!" Look for the floor. Who first created and insisted on a form of Global Gov't? Look for the floor!

    Unchecked debt, massive growth of gov't at all levels, unbefore known powers including the granting of what may amount to a Presidential pardon for an entire private sector industry who along with gov't may and most likely did violate basic principles of constitutional law and limitations. Using the Bush Presidency as a floor, where in the future can it all go?


    Your post was dead on in many ways, maybe even more ways than the 2 of us even realize. The problem IMHO is we are still too naive to understand and see statism when it really does exist. I've no problem seeing and understanding Obama as a Statist in every way but where I do have a problem is to try and sell me this on Obama only while ignoring McCain. The ironic fact is, who does have more experience with growing and expanding Statism? If I didn't want something and get less of meant choosing someone less qualified and experienced at the task, in a "Outer Limits" kinda way, Obama in some weird twisted universe would be the better qualified candidate and I know that will seem way off the reservation to some, maybe even to yourself.

    What is Statism?

    from Merriam-Webster's Online:

    I also have in my pocession the 1886' and the 1914' editions of Bouvier's Law dictionary which by the way was the standard dictionary used by our Congress for many a year. Statism is not listed because it's use in history has been one mostly of a use as a derogatory term and the term has been used in this fashion by all sides when speaking of their opponent. This use is more of a modern creation by Bouvier's does list the term Statist and I'll leave you with that definition and a thought to consider.

    Statist: A politician; one skilled in government.

    If one chooses an engineer for a task, does one expect more engineering or less engineering from this person?

    If one chooses a doctor for a task, does one expect more doctoring or less doctoring from this person?

    If one chooses a thief for a task, does one expect more theft or less theft from this person.

    If one elects a politician?

  3. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Labels, economic fear mongering and typical RNC talking points.....:sleeping:

    Not only are the conservatives falling for the "Evil-Doers attacked us for our freedoms and way of life, now you want us to believe "Obama" is attacking our "economic freedoms" in the form of Stalin or Lenin, then that puts McCain on the opposite side of the spectrum of "Capitalism Gone Wild....I think the terrorist are successfully accomplishing economic warfare right under our noses and we are so caught up with partisanship bickering not to recognize this.
  4. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    Now that wkmac has confused the thread with his ramblings its time to repost the point that this article is eye opening and scarey and should be a warning to all of us of the dangers of electing hussien to the presidency.
  5. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful "

    My hubby and I have frequently talked about this over the years. The harder you work, the more you are penalized. When we scrimped & saved for a downpayment for our first house, we watched as other couples we knew got all kinds of gov't help to get the same kind of house. They didn't work hard for it at all.

    Since retirement, you have things in place for your kids, when something happens to you. When politicians come on the scene and say they want to raise taxes on death benefits, now they will be taking away what we worked hard for for our kids to have. It generally pisses us off.

    No wonder most of today's youth have no work ethic......everything is given to them and they don't have to work for anything.

    We worked hard for everything we have and I really hate it when politicians want to take it away. B.O. wants to take it away, so he doesn't get my vote.:biting:
  6. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    So what does economic justice mean to you? Raising taxes on the rich? Thats wealth redistribution. Free healthcare for the poor paid for by the rich? Thats wealth redistribution. Obama's own economic policies are all about a robin hood type mentality where its the government's job to steal from the rich and give to the poor. If you took the time to read Obama's own books you would see that growing up his closest mentors before the racist Jeremiah Wright were fierce communists. You can deny these truths all you want, but the facts all show Hussein as a strict socialist if not borderline Marxist.
  7. brazenbrown

    brazenbrown New Member

    Excellent article retired!

    If only Obama's throngs of hypnotized Zombies really knew how radical his background was and how he plans to socialize America to its detriment, maybe, just maybe they'd wake the hell UP!!

    You are one wordy mother!!:happy-very:

    How about the radical ties throughout his life?? Aside from being the most liberal member of the Senate there's this...
    A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities.

    His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

    Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground.
    Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.:sick:

    And of course his buddy the Rev:
    The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere.
    Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits.

    Obama spent 20 years at this church where his children were baptized.

    How can we compare McCain to all this? Where are McCain's radical terrorist buddies??

    It almost seems with his radical background that this whole Obama thing is a plot to take over the U.S. The whole Obama package comes complete with all the talking points and no substance, but who am I to suggest a conspiracy theory in the making, I'll leave that to the far left liberal radicals...:happy-very:

    I'll say it again...
    If only Obama's throngs of hypnotized Zombies really knew how radical his background was and how he plans to socialize America to its detriment, maybe, just maybe they'd wake the hell UP!!
    Wake up D before it's too late!!!:surprised:

    If they'd only wake up!!!

    You seem wide awake to me!!:happy-very:
  8. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Maybe some "zombies" are slowly snapping out of their fog. The latest polls show B.O. and McCain tied.
  9. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

  10. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    NO...I beg to differ. This link can define it better than I.

    You see it all ties together....Economic justice links with social justice, distiguishing justice from charity, and how participation, distribution (input-output) results into harmony.

    Quote to achieve "Economic Harmony"

    "interest of one man or group of men, if given free play, will produce results offering the maximum advantage to other men and the community as a whole." This principle offers guidelines for controlling monopolies, building checks-and-balances within social institutions, and re-synchronizing distribution (outtake) with participation (input). The first two principles of economic justice flow from the eternal human search for justice in general, which automatically requires a balance between input and outtake, i.e., "to each according to what he is due." The principle of harmony, on the other hand, reflects the human quest for other absolute values, including Truth, Love and Beauty.

    Punishing the successful, and taxing the rich? This is where we have fundamental differences. The rich and successful have been enjoying privledged tax cuts implemented by Bush to stimulate our economy and labor, meanwhile our Gov't spends uncontrollaby and big business is distributing jobs, goods and services overseas not fully participating in recycling back to our economy to achieve harmony. Thanks to the path this Gov't chose to follow, the rich and successful don't deserve this priviledge plus we can't afford to subsudize it, so what you consider taxing the rich and successful is simply a ROLLBACK on their taxes. If we give-ith....we can take it away-ith. And invest that revenue in our infrastructure, security and well-being (healthcare) of our citizens. Infrastructure is key in re-energizing our economic outlook.
  11. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    The statement I have highlighted in bold eerily resembles a famous quote from a well known author. The quote reads as follows: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." These famous words were written by the father of communism himself Karl Marx. The basic problem is that it does not work. Human nature has never allowed for a perfect communistic institution to exist and never will. Hence Economic justice = communism.

    I don't know about you, but I have never been employed by a poor person. I have never been given a job, paycheck, or offered benefits from a person who is living hand to mouth and generally does not achieve any kind of economic success in life. Your basic premise that we need to "punish the successful" is flawed because the successful people in this country are the ones creating the businesses which create the jobs which keep people employed. Despite your uneducated opinion which you so strongly cling to the "successful" or rich people of this nation are already shouldering the mother load of our government's total tax revenues. The bottom 85% of wage earners today only pay something like 2.9% of the governments total tax revenues. The top 1% pay around 45% of the governments total tax revenues which has steadily grown since the bush tax cuts have been put in place. How much more should they pay? Its a fact that government tax revenues grow when the economy grows, and the economy can only grow when people who are "successful" have money to invest. The government has proven to be extremely efficient at wasting money, so giving more money to them will do nobody any good. Our government's waste needs to be limited at the legislative and executive branches, not subsidized by the people.

    This is where we come to the basic difference between you and I. I believe people succeed when they are empowered to make the choices that best suit them. This model has served our country well for the last 200+ years propelling our country to a world superpower with a model envied by billions around the world. You wish to scrap every institution we have used to get where we are today so that every person in this nation can be enslaved to the federal government in ways that would make people like Stalin, Lenin, and Marx smile from the grave. Change is the mantra spewed by a man who is a radical, with radical connections all of which whom have worked in someway to destroy this great nation. The future of our nation can be prosperous, or wrought with mandatory servitude. We know you have already chosen the latter, and I can only hope the rest of the nation does not feel the same way.
  12. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Here is an article you may find interesting.
  13. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Brett, in case you haven't noticed or have been hiding under a rock these days your idealogy of Reagonomics on steriods with tax cuts for the wealthy, compounded with foreign interventions, outsoursing, over privatizing the Military Industrial complex , neglect of infrastructure, and neglect of the poor and middle class has been a complete failure and has been decaying this great nation like one great big cavitity. Give us one good reason (without using any former Russian leaders or the term communism if you can )after 8 years GOP control that you hardliners who hijacked the republican party deserve another shot at the Title, becuase this is certainly not prosperous times. Your party had it's chance, now it's time to go back to the end of the line and wait your turn again. Take a number!
  14. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    you make it sound as if the rich are recieving some type of subsidy from the government when a tax cut simply means the rich are paying less taxes then they were before.

    A rich person still pays about half of their yearly earnings as taxes. Those rich actually pay a greater percentage of the overall taxes.

    the true selling point here is that when obama looks to reach into someones pockets to steal more of their earnings I do have to admit I hope it is the rich and not my own.:happy-very:

    Personally I think its more of the canadian flim flam. Obama will talk about stealing more money from the rich while quietly telling the rich to not worry about their money when sitting in some dark back boardroom somewhere.
  15. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. You may wish to act like communism is long gone, but the policies, principles, and values supported by you and your candidate resemble those of famous communists throughout history. Its not paranoia, but calling a spade a spade.

    I have worked for cheap bosses, but let me tell you why they are cheap. Businesses exist to make money, and a frivolous spender does not make a good businessman. So who is it to decide what is their "fair share"? Should rich pay 50%? 75%? 100% of their incomes to the government? What examples in our history can you show me where giving the government more money does anyone any good? How about showing me a universal social program run by the government that isn't on a crash course with bankruptcy? I've done tax returns for single moms with one kid and earnings in the range of $6k-$30k, and do you know how much money they pay in income taxes? $0. In fact once you calculate EIC the government pays them more then they pay the government.

    If you really want to debate the truth behind Reaganomics the proof is in the pudding. When the capital gains tax rate is lowered the government takes in more tax revenues. When the income tax is cut the same is true, and has proven to be true going back to the days of Reagan. I know the truth is your enemy, but you should really try it out sometime. Enlightenment is not as bad as you may think.

    When true conservative values are allowed to be put into action you only need to look at my home state of Indiana to see the benefits. We are one of a handful of states not currently in a rising deficit situation like that of California or New York. We have cut property taxes by a third, allowed people to feel safe in their homes by enacting a castle doctrine law, and have enjoyed a surplus of jobs over the last 4 years with our Republican Governor who is willing to travel to the four corners of the earth to garner them. Creating opportunity and not misery is how a government can benefit its people. Hussien will never get this, and the glimmer of hope for yourself is dim, but I have faith in my fellow Americans that they will not vote in a terrorist sympathizer into the white house.

  16. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    Brett...when push comes to shove, I bet the old school Italian and German immigrants will gladly give you a lesson on what our leadership most closely resembles. Go ahead...take a guess.

    I have worked for cheap bosses, but let me tell you why they are cheap. Businesses exist to make money, and a frivolous spender does not make a good businessman.

    So why take it out of the laborer's pocket. Flooding the market with high turn over minimun wage jobs with little or no benefits hardly awards our economy with massive sectors of society unable to make substancial contributing purchases. In fact it puts a strain on our Gov't to pay out more social services than neccessary. Why encourage entreprenuers to look elsewhere for our mfg, goods and services or replace american workers with immigrants and illegals.

    So who is it to decide what is their "fair share"? Should rich pay 50%? 75%? 100% of their incomes to the government? What examples in our history can you show me where giving the government more money does anyone any good?

    I don't know how you come up with those inflated tax rates amongst the rich but I will give you an example where I don't agree giving the Gov't more money in and that is engaging in nationbuilding and infrastructucture restoration of other countries except our own. You also seem to promote giving our Gov't more money to spy on us and enrich the Military Ind Complex with over inflated contracts. I'm only interested in non-privatized basic human services that free us from that financial profit making ball n chain so the masses have the funds available to persue and promote economic growth.