Check me out here with Lee Dryer speaking about liberal non-profit foundations.
The article on Z Smith Reynolds is here and the one on WK Kellogg is here.
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label socialism. Show all posts
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Reporting from the Daley Plaza Recess Tea Party
Today, at noon Central Time, Daley Plaza was the home of one of 435 tea party demonstrations against Obama Care. This particular protest was directed specifically at Senator Dick Durbin. Senator Durbin declined to attend and the crowd let Durbin know just how they felt about his lack of attention to his constituency. This demonstration was promoted by John and Cisco of 560 WIND. The Thomas More Law Center was also a sponsor and they did the leg work in getting the permit.
The event drew about 500-1000 protesters and there were about 20 counter protesters from the Chicago Single Payer Network. The majority of the signs were hand made and they varied in style and substance. Because rallies like this always create an intersection between local, state, and national politics, the protest continued to intersect between all those political intersections over and over.
For instance, Patrick Hughes was a speaker. Hughes is a candidate for the Republican nomination in the U.S. Senate. He will be running against Congressman Mark Kirk. Kirk, himself a Republican, has become a scourge of the tea party movement with his vote for cap and trade. The mention of Kirk drew a plethora of boos from the crowd. After the scheduled speakers spoke, several folks from the crowd also spoke. One pointed out that Durbin, implicated in the University of Illinois clout scandal, would use his influence to put friends and family to the front of the line when health care would become rationed. Others pointed to cost overruns at the Illinois toll road as examples of broken promises. The bankrupt Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were examples of national government programs that made this crowd distrustful of Obama Care.
It's also clear that this crowd wasn't buying this morning's oped by President Obama. Fears of tax funded abortions, health care for illegals, and government take over and rationing were raised over and over. In fact, in most ways, the ideas that were presented today were a microcosm of the concerns we've heard at town halls everywhere this month.
If this crowd is any indication, then for tea parties the main reform health care mantra is tort reform. Patrick Hughes suggested allowing insurance to cross state lines, ending mandates, but it was when he pronounced his support for tort reform that the crowd exploded. That was his political home run. He wasn't the only one. Each and every time tort reform was mentioned was the moment when the crowd was at its most ruckus.
One speaker described her own personal story. Her daughter has a very rare heart condition. She says that her daughter required specialized cardiovascular surgery. It was her private insurance that gave her a full menu of doctors to choose from. She continued to point out that every drug, every procedure, and every doctor was created in America "the best health care system in the world".
A representative from Chicago Single Payer Network was also given a minute to speak. He said that his dad was treated FOR FREE for several decades under Medicare. He said the only fair system is the government run system. The crowd pointed out that Medicare is broke and that his dad's free health care was really picked up by someone else.
I also spoke with a sympathizer of the Chicago Single Payer Network after the rally. They are a self professed "Marxist". They are not only for a single payer health care but against business entirely which is "dictatorial". They believed that it's flat out evil that Warren Buffett has billions while others starve. He didn't believe that Microsoft should belong to Bill Gates, and refused to acknowledge that Gates should be rewarded for the risk he took when he started Microsoft. Instead, he saw a world in which workers owned their own wealth. When I said that any worker could own their own wealth by being an entrepeneur, he said that he envisioned a society without business. It is a command society where the workers rule. It's important to note that the Chicago Single Payer Network is part of a coalition that includes the International Socialist Organization.
There's no question that single payer is part of an ideology that eventually leads our society toward socialism, a point made by several speakers. What's fascinating about this ideology is it's disgust for private business, entrepeneurship, and free markets. Think about that as you watch this video of Congressman Weiner.
The event drew about 500-1000 protesters and there were about 20 counter protesters from the Chicago Single Payer Network. The majority of the signs were hand made and they varied in style and substance. Because rallies like this always create an intersection between local, state, and national politics, the protest continued to intersect between all those political intersections over and over.
For instance, Patrick Hughes was a speaker. Hughes is a candidate for the Republican nomination in the U.S. Senate. He will be running against Congressman Mark Kirk. Kirk, himself a Republican, has become a scourge of the tea party movement with his vote for cap and trade. The mention of Kirk drew a plethora of boos from the crowd. After the scheduled speakers spoke, several folks from the crowd also spoke. One pointed out that Durbin, implicated in the University of Illinois clout scandal, would use his influence to put friends and family to the front of the line when health care would become rationed. Others pointed to cost overruns at the Illinois toll road as examples of broken promises. The bankrupt Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security were examples of national government programs that made this crowd distrustful of Obama Care.
It's also clear that this crowd wasn't buying this morning's oped by President Obama. Fears of tax funded abortions, health care for illegals, and government take over and rationing were raised over and over. In fact, in most ways, the ideas that were presented today were a microcosm of the concerns we've heard at town halls everywhere this month.
If this crowd is any indication, then for tea parties the main reform health care mantra is tort reform. Patrick Hughes suggested allowing insurance to cross state lines, ending mandates, but it was when he pronounced his support for tort reform that the crowd exploded. That was his political home run. He wasn't the only one. Each and every time tort reform was mentioned was the moment when the crowd was at its most ruckus.
One speaker described her own personal story. Her daughter has a very rare heart condition. She says that her daughter required specialized cardiovascular surgery. It was her private insurance that gave her a full menu of doctors to choose from. She continued to point out that every drug, every procedure, and every doctor was created in America "the best health care system in the world".
A representative from Chicago Single Payer Network was also given a minute to speak. He said that his dad was treated FOR FREE for several decades under Medicare. He said the only fair system is the government run system. The crowd pointed out that Medicare is broke and that his dad's free health care was really picked up by someone else.
I also spoke with a sympathizer of the Chicago Single Payer Network after the rally. They are a self professed "Marxist". They are not only for a single payer health care but against business entirely which is "dictatorial". They believed that it's flat out evil that Warren Buffett has billions while others starve. He didn't believe that Microsoft should belong to Bill Gates, and refused to acknowledge that Gates should be rewarded for the risk he took when he started Microsoft. Instead, he saw a world in which workers owned their own wealth. When I said that any worker could own their own wealth by being an entrepeneur, he said that he envisioned a society without business. It is a command society where the workers rule. It's important to note that the Chicago Single Payer Network is part of a coalition that includes the International Socialist Organization.
There's no question that single payer is part of an ideology that eventually leads our society toward socialism, a point made by several speakers. What's fascinating about this ideology is it's disgust for private business, entrepeneurship, and free markets. Think about that as you watch this video of Congressman Weiner.
null
The same disgust for the free market that the Marxist felt was felt by Weiner in this clip. Make no mistake. The public option is a trojan horse for single payer. Also, make no mistake, those that support single payer are rooted in the ideology of Socialism. It's just that some more freely admit it than others.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Obama's Economic Policies and the Definition of Socialism
Here is how Wikipedia defines socialism.
So, an economy that is centrally planned and controlled is one that defines Socialism. So, is President Obama trying to manage the economy? (the definition of centrally planned)
So, let's look at what the president did with Chrysler. When Chrysler was about to file for bankruptcy the president stepped in. He orchestrated a deal that would give most of the company to UAW. That would be followed by the government itself being a minority owner and then Fiat. Its creditors would be in the weakest position. Most of the creditors accepted this deal. Why? It's because most of the entities owed also themselves owed to TARP. It was companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. As such, when the president said jump these companies said "how high". The only ones to balk were those financial institutions that didn't owe to TARP.
Does this sound like centrally planned and controlled? Even the most ardent supporters of President Obama aren't going to deny that. Through TARP, the president now controls the actions of most of the banking system. Now, any business that these banks do is controlled and monitored by the president. The fiasco surrounding Chrysler shows this.
The president claims he doesn't want to own the car companies. Of course, that's hard to believe given that he wants a majority stake in GM and a minority stake in Chrysler. Actions speak a lot louder than words. Currently, the government is negotiating with both car companies to take an ownership stake in each.
Then, there's the signature pieces of President Obama's domestic agenda: cap and trade, health care, and education. Cap and trade will control how much of what types of energy sources each and every company will be allowed to use. Does this sound like government control and central planning? Again, even his most ardent supporter would need tortured logic to deny this.
Universal health care would of course also put the nation's health care in government control. First, there would be a government run health insurance that would "compete" with private insurance. I say "compete" because unlike private plans, the government's health insurance need not be profitable. It can be paid for with tax increases, borrowing, and printing money. Since the private insurance carriers have no such luxury, that's not really a competition. Then, there is the government run health insurance exchange. All health insurance carriers would have their health insurance policies run through a centralized system run by the government. Again, does anyone doubt that this is central planning and control of health care?
So, what is the president trying to do? He's trying to plan and control banking and financial services, automobiles, energy, and health care. Isn't that the definition of socialism? Of course, we aren't even done yet. The biggest way for the government to control and plan the economy is through government spending itself. The more money the government puts into the economy, the more it controls the economy. Well, the president has issued a massive $787 billion "stimulus". His budget is the biggest in history, and he's created a mortgage bailout, and banking bailout. The amount of spending by this president is unprecedented. Isn't that central planning and control.
The president's defenders will say he is simply responding to a horrible economy. All of this is temporary. That's nonsense. Neither universal health care nor cap and trade are temporary. There is absolutely no exit plan from control of either the autos or the banks. Furthermore, this isn't necessary. Different presidents respond differently to economic downturns. Reagan came into office during stagflation and he not only cut taxes but government spending on everything but defense. Warren Harding followed a similar model during the recession he dealt with. The Irish cut taxes and their economy boomed. The president is doing this not because it's the only choice. He's doing it because it's the choice he wants to use. Make no mistake...the central planning and control the president is creating is NOT necessary. Rather it's being done because this is the policy he believes in.
Now, is he a socialist? Well, compared to folks like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez he certainly is not. Unfortunately, he is creating a level of Socialism in our economy never seen before, and it's a matter of policy that he believes in.
broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods,
So, an economy that is centrally planned and controlled is one that defines Socialism. So, is President Obama trying to manage the economy? (the definition of centrally planned)
So, let's look at what the president did with Chrysler. When Chrysler was about to file for bankruptcy the president stepped in. He orchestrated a deal that would give most of the company to UAW. That would be followed by the government itself being a minority owner and then Fiat. Its creditors would be in the weakest position. Most of the creditors accepted this deal. Why? It's because most of the entities owed also themselves owed to TARP. It was companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. As such, when the president said jump these companies said "how high". The only ones to balk were those financial institutions that didn't owe to TARP.
Does this sound like centrally planned and controlled? Even the most ardent supporters of President Obama aren't going to deny that. Through TARP, the president now controls the actions of most of the banking system. Now, any business that these banks do is controlled and monitored by the president. The fiasco surrounding Chrysler shows this.
The president claims he doesn't want to own the car companies. Of course, that's hard to believe given that he wants a majority stake in GM and a minority stake in Chrysler. Actions speak a lot louder than words. Currently, the government is negotiating with both car companies to take an ownership stake in each.
Then, there's the signature pieces of President Obama's domestic agenda: cap and trade, health care, and education. Cap and trade will control how much of what types of energy sources each and every company will be allowed to use. Does this sound like government control and central planning? Again, even his most ardent supporter would need tortured logic to deny this.
Universal health care would of course also put the nation's health care in government control. First, there would be a government run health insurance that would "compete" with private insurance. I say "compete" because unlike private plans, the government's health insurance need not be profitable. It can be paid for with tax increases, borrowing, and printing money. Since the private insurance carriers have no such luxury, that's not really a competition. Then, there is the government run health insurance exchange. All health insurance carriers would have their health insurance policies run through a centralized system run by the government. Again, does anyone doubt that this is central planning and control of health care?
So, what is the president trying to do? He's trying to plan and control banking and financial services, automobiles, energy, and health care. Isn't that the definition of socialism? Of course, we aren't even done yet. The biggest way for the government to control and plan the economy is through government spending itself. The more money the government puts into the economy, the more it controls the economy. Well, the president has issued a massive $787 billion "stimulus". His budget is the biggest in history, and he's created a mortgage bailout, and banking bailout. The amount of spending by this president is unprecedented. Isn't that central planning and control.
The president's defenders will say he is simply responding to a horrible economy. All of this is temporary. That's nonsense. Neither universal health care nor cap and trade are temporary. There is absolutely no exit plan from control of either the autos or the banks. Furthermore, this isn't necessary. Different presidents respond differently to economic downturns. Reagan came into office during stagflation and he not only cut taxes but government spending on everything but defense. Warren Harding followed a similar model during the recession he dealt with. The Irish cut taxes and their economy boomed. The president is doing this not because it's the only choice. He's doing it because it's the choice he wants to use. Make no mistake...the central planning and control the president is creating is NOT necessary. Rather it's being done because this is the policy he believes in.
Now, is he a socialist? Well, compared to folks like Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez he certainly is not. Unfortunately, he is creating a level of Socialism in our economy never seen before, and it's a matter of policy that he believes in.
Friday, April 24, 2009
It's All Framing GOP: Socialist is Far too Provocative
There is now a debate raging with the Republican National Comittee. The state Republican chairs want the national chairman, Michael Steele, to begin to refer to President Obama as a Socialist.
At the tea parties, I cringed a bit everytime I saw a sign that referred to Obama as a Socialist. That's because such provocative language will get you noticed, but it also presents an image of an extremist.
Don't get me wrong. If you are a blogger, or columnist, being provocative is simply good marketing. That's a way to get noticed. Yet, the RNC is not a bunch of bloggers. The RNC needs to not only appease their base but be able to reach out to those folks sufficiently moderate that they are willing to listen to Republican's message.
Socialist is a very loaded term. Again, if you are a blogger, loaded is excellent, because you don't need to appeal to a cross section of folks. You can target extremes and wings and be very successful. The RNC has no such luxury. They can't only target extremes. So, when a moderate hears the RNC refer to President Obama as a Socialist, what they are likely to draw is that the RNC is full ideologues perfectly willing to demonize their opponents.
The best analogy of this is the Minutemen. The image they presented of themselves was one of extremists, and it lead to they being effectively painted as racist. If the RNC starts to routinely call Obama a Socialist they look bitter and extreme. They are coarsening the debate.
There are plenty of effective ways of painting Obama's policies properly while not using loaded terms that turn off moderates. He's a tax, borrow, and spend liberal and that isn't nearly as loaded. In fact, Republicans spent decades effectively painting their opponents as tax and spend. Obama's policies are akin to the Social Democracies currently going on in Europe. Characterizing him as such also doesn't unnecessarily conjure up visions of Mussolini. Instead, it conjures up visions of stagnant growth and double digit unemployment the way they have in Europe.
Frankly, the very fact that such a debate is even occurring inside the RNC is a sign that the blind are leading the blind. First, why would this ever be leaked? Those that leaked it don't have the best interest of the party at heart. It's likely they have their own agenda. That this is even public in and of itself hurts the party. It says that so called leaders are serious in trying to compare Obama to the likes of Mussolini. (yes, I once compared him to Marx but again, effective for a blog but not for a national party)
I belong to a local Republican group. Its leaders often tell me that when they meet non Republicans a common observation is that they are surprised that we Republicans don't have horns. That's the image that those outside the party have of the party itself. That's not a good image to have, and one of the reasons that we have it is the over the top rhetoric. Calling the President a Socialist is a great way to advance that image.
Republican state party leaders are rebelling against new Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele for failing to dub President Obama and the Democrats as “socialists.” And the rebels insist that the label matters.
Even though Mr. Steele has called his Democratic adversaries “collectivists,” at least 16 state leaders say the term lacks the pejorative punch needed to sway public opinion and want all 168 members of the Republican National Committee to debate and vote on it.
It is the first time in memory that a sitting national leader of the Republican Party has faced a public challenge over his ideological leadership by conservative members of his own national committee.
At the tea parties, I cringed a bit everytime I saw a sign that referred to Obama as a Socialist. That's because such provocative language will get you noticed, but it also presents an image of an extremist.
Don't get me wrong. If you are a blogger, or columnist, being provocative is simply good marketing. That's a way to get noticed. Yet, the RNC is not a bunch of bloggers. The RNC needs to not only appease their base but be able to reach out to those folks sufficiently moderate that they are willing to listen to Republican's message.
Socialist is a very loaded term. Again, if you are a blogger, loaded is excellent, because you don't need to appeal to a cross section of folks. You can target extremes and wings and be very successful. The RNC has no such luxury. They can't only target extremes. So, when a moderate hears the RNC refer to President Obama as a Socialist, what they are likely to draw is that the RNC is full ideologues perfectly willing to demonize their opponents.
The best analogy of this is the Minutemen. The image they presented of themselves was one of extremists, and it lead to they being effectively painted as racist. If the RNC starts to routinely call Obama a Socialist they look bitter and extreme. They are coarsening the debate.
There are plenty of effective ways of painting Obama's policies properly while not using loaded terms that turn off moderates. He's a tax, borrow, and spend liberal and that isn't nearly as loaded. In fact, Republicans spent decades effectively painting their opponents as tax and spend. Obama's policies are akin to the Social Democracies currently going on in Europe. Characterizing him as such also doesn't unnecessarily conjure up visions of Mussolini. Instead, it conjures up visions of stagnant growth and double digit unemployment the way they have in Europe.
Frankly, the very fact that such a debate is even occurring inside the RNC is a sign that the blind are leading the blind. First, why would this ever be leaked? Those that leaked it don't have the best interest of the party at heart. It's likely they have their own agenda. That this is even public in and of itself hurts the party. It says that so called leaders are serious in trying to compare Obama to the likes of Mussolini. (yes, I once compared him to Marx but again, effective for a blog but not for a national party)
I belong to a local Republican group. Its leaders often tell me that when they meet non Republicans a common observation is that they are surprised that we Republicans don't have horns. That's the image that those outside the party have of the party itself. That's not a good image to have, and one of the reasons that we have it is the over the top rhetoric. Calling the President a Socialist is a great way to advance that image.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Government Plays Venture Capitalists II
To say that yesterday's announcement that GM CEO, Rick Wagoner, was forced out by the president himself was chilling is the understatement of all understatements. On some levels, this is a fairly natural act. Very few people would say that Wagoner deserved his job. After all, that he needed to take tax payer's money just to keep the company running speaks for itself. Furthermore, if the company is going to take tax payer money, then this cannot be with no strings attached. In this case, the president speaks for the tax payers. If GM is to get anymore money, then step one is the removal of the CEO.
Yet, it is chilling to the bone that we have come to a place where the president of the United States tells a private company exactly who their CEO can't be. Today, the president pronounced that he doesn't want to run GM. Yet, that's exactly what he is doing. He has just made a significant staffing decision. Furthermore, he has pronounced that their restructuring plan is not good enough. Furthermore, he has formed an auto task force to figure out a way forward.
This is exactly the sort of things that venture capitalists do. They often find companies that are struggling. They infuse them with cash and then they begin to make managerial, staffing, and management decisions. In essence, these venture capitalists run companies, at least until they are turned around.
For the president to now say he doesn't want to run GM is the height of duplicity. You can't on the one hand demand the CEO fired and proclaim a restructuring plan unacceptable, and then say you don't want to run a company. You are running the company.
Worse than that is this. If GM is to take government money, then, in fact, this is the prudent thing to do. After all, isn't this behavior significantly more prudent, then simply authorizing a series of endless checks and credit lines to the tune of more than a hundred billion dollars? In fact, on one level, the president is acting very responsibly. The problem is that this behavior exposes just how irresponsible the idea of bailouts is altogether.
These companies all came to Congress exactly because traditional venture capitalists wouldn't fund them. The private market wouldn't allow these companies to continue. That should have been all the Congress needed to know. Yet, instead, they deemed these companies too vital to fail and gave them a lifeline. The Congress, along with the president (both current and prior), also gave them a warning that they wanted a plan. Once the politicians did this, they immediately took on the role of venture capitalists.
This was in fact a major step toward a more centrally planned economy. The minute that the federal government, in any way shape or form, decides business plans, hiring decisions, and firing decisions, we have crossed a very slipppery slope toward a centrally planned economy. In fact, bailouts go hand in hand with centrally planned economies. Once governments decide which companies succeed and which companies fail we have a centrally planned economy. We have taken a very dangerous step toward a centrally planned economy with this move.
Yet, it is chilling to the bone that we have come to a place where the president of the United States tells a private company exactly who their CEO can't be. Today, the president pronounced that he doesn't want to run GM. Yet, that's exactly what he is doing. He has just made a significant staffing decision. Furthermore, he has pronounced that their restructuring plan is not good enough. Furthermore, he has formed an auto task force to figure out a way forward.
This is exactly the sort of things that venture capitalists do. They often find companies that are struggling. They infuse them with cash and then they begin to make managerial, staffing, and management decisions. In essence, these venture capitalists run companies, at least until they are turned around.
For the president to now say he doesn't want to run GM is the height of duplicity. You can't on the one hand demand the CEO fired and proclaim a restructuring plan unacceptable, and then say you don't want to run a company. You are running the company.
Worse than that is this. If GM is to take government money, then, in fact, this is the prudent thing to do. After all, isn't this behavior significantly more prudent, then simply authorizing a series of endless checks and credit lines to the tune of more than a hundred billion dollars? In fact, on one level, the president is acting very responsibly. The problem is that this behavior exposes just how irresponsible the idea of bailouts is altogether.
These companies all came to Congress exactly because traditional venture capitalists wouldn't fund them. The private market wouldn't allow these companies to continue. That should have been all the Congress needed to know. Yet, instead, they deemed these companies too vital to fail and gave them a lifeline. The Congress, along with the president (both current and prior), also gave them a warning that they wanted a plan. Once the politicians did this, they immediately took on the role of venture capitalists.
This was in fact a major step toward a more centrally planned economy. The minute that the federal government, in any way shape or form, decides business plans, hiring decisions, and firing decisions, we have crossed a very slipppery slope toward a centrally planned economy. In fact, bailouts go hand in hand with centrally planned economies. Once governments decide which companies succeed and which companies fail we have a centrally planned economy. We have taken a very dangerous step toward a centrally planned economy with this move.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The President's Missing Narrative
Any agenda must have a story, a narrative if you will. The people must understand where the administration is going and why they are going there. Most modern day presidents have things they want to accomplish, their agenda. To get the American people on board presidents must explain what they are trying accomplish and how they plan to get there. That's what I mean by a narrative.
This president has plenty that he wants to accomplish: health care for all, energy independence, better education, fixing the economy, and cutting the budget deficit. What is missing is a narrative to tie it all together. No one is really sure how he is going to do any of it and much of it seems to conflict with each other. No one can really explain how it all ties together.
Now, let's compare that to narrative of his opponents. The president's opponents see a president that sees a crisis as an opportunity. This is an opportunity to create an orgy of liberal causes that the ideology has been craving for decades. This crisis is nothing more than an excuse for an unprecedented expansion of government and power grab. Furthermore, this expansion is meant to make our country look more like a socialist Democracy in the model of Europe. Finally, this expansion will create debts and deficits that are unsustainable and ultimately will either bankrupt us or create hyperinflation.
Now, I am not here to argue the validity of either side. Anyone who has been reading this space knows where I stand. There can be no doubt though that at the moment it is the president's opponents with the clearer and more effective narrative. Until and unless he changes that his popularity will continue to erode.
This president has plenty that he wants to accomplish: health care for all, energy independence, better education, fixing the economy, and cutting the budget deficit. What is missing is a narrative to tie it all together. No one is really sure how he is going to do any of it and much of it seems to conflict with each other. No one can really explain how it all ties together.
Now, let's compare that to narrative of his opponents. The president's opponents see a president that sees a crisis as an opportunity. This is an opportunity to create an orgy of liberal causes that the ideology has been craving for decades. This crisis is nothing more than an excuse for an unprecedented expansion of government and power grab. Furthermore, this expansion is meant to make our country look more like a socialist Democracy in the model of Europe. Finally, this expansion will create debts and deficits that are unsustainable and ultimately will either bankrupt us or create hyperinflation.
Now, I am not here to argue the validity of either side. Anyone who has been reading this space knows where I stand. There can be no doubt though that at the moment it is the president's opponents with the clearer and more effective narrative. Until and unless he changes that his popularity will continue to erode.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
President Obama's Multi Pronged Strategy for the Near Total Socialization of America
What we are witnesssing, right before our eyes, is the nightmare that all free market, small government conservatives have feared from President Obama. In the last week, we have had several different reports about only mildly related issues and each one of them points in the same direction. President Obama is determined to turn the United States of America into a Socialist Democracy on the order of France and Sweden.
The most obvious bit of news is the stimulus package. There are several things that are clear from this package. First, this will entail a massive expansion of government. Second, whatever jobs will be created will be created by the government. Third, the deficits will wind up being so high that it will be nearly impossible to cut taxes in the future and thus give stimulus to the private market. As such, the end result of this stimulus will be the government playing a far more important role in our economy than it ever has before.
The second announcement is the announcement that the Obama administration will allow individual states like California to set their own emission standards. Now, it's important to understand that the big three are soon going to need more money. They will of course come to the federal government for more money. President Obama will likely oblige however there will no doubt be strings attached. President Obama will demand that as a stipulation of getting this money the big three go on a serious campaign to build energy efficient automobiles. In fact, they will have no choice regardless. With stringent emissions standards in states like California, the big three will have to or they won't be complying with the law. Now, of course, everyone is in favor of energy efficiency. However, some are more than happy letting the government dictate it, while others would like to see the free market dictate energy efficiency. The Obama administration will be more than happy having the government tell the automakers just how energy efficient their cars have to be.
The last bit of news is the news that the Obama administration is likely to ask for a second round of bailout money for the banks. (that's on top of getting the second $350 billion released). Now, CNBC reports that full nationalization is the least likely option following the second TARP. Of course, ultimately it won't matter much. President Obama has already been on record as being displeased with the lack of oversight of how previous TARP money has been spent. As such, you are sure to see President Obama demand that it be spent exactly as he likes. After all, the TARP money is the government's money. One way or another, once the second TARP is rolled out, we will effectively have banks be nationalized.
So, in one fell swoop, President Obama will expand the size and scope of government exponentially. At the same time, he will effectively nationalize two major industries. The sum total will be an America that is much like the Socialist Democracy of France.
The most obvious bit of news is the stimulus package. There are several things that are clear from this package. First, this will entail a massive expansion of government. Second, whatever jobs will be created will be created by the government. Third, the deficits will wind up being so high that it will be nearly impossible to cut taxes in the future and thus give stimulus to the private market. As such, the end result of this stimulus will be the government playing a far more important role in our economy than it ever has before.
The second announcement is the announcement that the Obama administration will allow individual states like California to set their own emission standards. Now, it's important to understand that the big three are soon going to need more money. They will of course come to the federal government for more money. President Obama will likely oblige however there will no doubt be strings attached. President Obama will demand that as a stipulation of getting this money the big three go on a serious campaign to build energy efficient automobiles. In fact, they will have no choice regardless. With stringent emissions standards in states like California, the big three will have to or they won't be complying with the law. Now, of course, everyone is in favor of energy efficiency. However, some are more than happy letting the government dictate it, while others would like to see the free market dictate energy efficiency. The Obama administration will be more than happy having the government tell the automakers just how energy efficient their cars have to be.
The last bit of news is the news that the Obama administration is likely to ask for a second round of bailout money for the banks. (that's on top of getting the second $350 billion released). Now, CNBC reports that full nationalization is the least likely option following the second TARP. Of course, ultimately it won't matter much. President Obama has already been on record as being displeased with the lack of oversight of how previous TARP money has been spent. As such, you are sure to see President Obama demand that it be spent exactly as he likes. After all, the TARP money is the government's money. One way or another, once the second TARP is rolled out, we will effectively have banks be nationalized.
So, in one fell swoop, President Obama will expand the size and scope of government exponentially. At the same time, he will effectively nationalize two major industries. The sum total will be an America that is much like the Socialist Democracy of France.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Wealth, Health Care, and Fundamental Rights
In today's Huffington Post, Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. makes this stunning suggestion.
As such, Congressman Jackson Jr. doesn't merely believe that health care should be a right, but he wants the Constitution to be amended so that the right the quality health is forever ingrained into the Constitution. Even more stunning is the comparison Jackson makes to "prove" his point.
In other words, in the view of those like Jackson Jr. anything that we spend an enormous amount of money on needs to be considered a right. This sort of a thought is extremely dangerous. There are lots of things that government spends an enormous amount of money on: housing, food, jobs, research, etc. By Jackson's line of thinking, all of these things should also be rights. After all, our country spends hundreds of billions yearly on housing and yet not everyone has their own home. If you think as Jackson does, the only way to make this a reality is to make home ownership a right. This is frankly exactly the sort of thought process that eventually leads right to Socialism.
Because our current economic crisis is forcing us to think outside the box, one topic worthy of renewed discussion is health care. What if the Constitution said: "All citizens shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality and the Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation?"
Beyond the obvious benefits of greater and better health care itself, imagine the economic consequences: thousands of doctors and nurses being trained; new medical colleges established and older ones expanded; increased medical research; a massive preventive health care industry springing up; new hospitals in needy urban and rural areas with the private sector, federal, state, county and local governments all working cooperatively under the authority granted by the Constitution and Congress.
The absence of this human right as a health care constitutional amendment has major economic consequences as well. Preventive medicine is almost entirely missing from our current health care system, which costs taxpayers billions.
As such, Congressman Jackson Jr. doesn't merely believe that health care should be a right, but he wants the Constitution to be amended so that the right the quality health is forever ingrained into the Constitution. Even more stunning is the comparison Jackson makes to "prove" his point.
The Constitution is the wall that surrounds everything within it. The current wall consists of material from two central sources: a supreme law and the free enterprise system. The Constitution gives direction and authority to Congress, the president, federal agencies and to the states (under the Tenth Amendment). It is this sacred document that also grants the free market, our laissez-faire capitalist system, the legal authority to operate.It's true that media has proliferated in part because none of them are worried that the government will step in to silence them. That said, the government is not doing anything to threaten someone from entering the health care field despite health care not being a right. The comparison is totally ridiculous and fallacious. Jackson Jr. doesn't stop there. He sees the right to health care as a necessity because we are already spending an enormous amount on health care.
The First Amendment illustrates the interaction between these two wall-building materials -- the public and the private sides. That familiar amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. That's it! The Constitution doesn't say USA Today, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Defender, AM, FM, Satellite Radio, Newsweek, Time, Channels 2, 5, 7, or 9, PBS or CNN. Nor does it state cell phones, i-phones, the internet, and on-and-on. So, while it's impossible to truly determine the economic impact of the First Amendment, the Constitution clearly has a major impact to our nation's economic vitality
How can we afford such a system? Without a constitutional right to health care we already spend nearly twice as much as any other developed nation in the world -- about $2.5 trillion or 16% of our GDP -- yet nearly fifty million Americans are without health insurance and often receive their care in the most expensive manner possible, in the local hospital emergency room.
With a health care constitutional amendment, instead of plugging a hole in the dike, we would be building a wall with a strong and solid foundation. Instead of spending money on more band-aids, a revised Constitution would give direction to a unique American purpose and, over time, solve an historic problem. And with American innovation we could put millions of Americans to work expanding a more balanced economic system on the solid foundation of health care for all. Health care would be a human right protected by the American people in our Constitution.
In other words, in the view of those like Jackson Jr. anything that we spend an enormous amount of money on needs to be considered a right. This sort of a thought is extremely dangerous. There are lots of things that government spends an enormous amount of money on: housing, food, jobs, research, etc. By Jackson's line of thinking, all of these things should also be rights. After all, our country spends hundreds of billions yearly on housing and yet not everyone has their own home. If you think as Jackson does, the only way to make this a reality is to make home ownership a right. This is frankly exactly the sort of thought process that eventually leads right to Socialism.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Will the Tape Be a Game Changer
Definitely...maybe. First here is the tape again.
There are many ways to examine its effect. First of all, you go to the source. So far, it has had just over 1.5 million viewings on Youtube and approaching fifteen thousand comments. That is a stunning amount. Clearly, it has had an immediate impact. What remains to be seen is just how many viewings it will have in a week. If the video has had its run and we seen only a small gain from here then its impact from this angle will be limited. The magic number for me is ten million and one hundred thousand. If it gets ten million viewings and one hundred thousand comments, then it will have a serious impact on the campaign from the You Tube angle.
That's just one way to look at it though. The other way is how does this tape affect the news cycle. Let's take a look.
and...
Here is a sampling of the media coverage on the net. Finally, here is some anecdotal evidence. I wrote this piece comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx. Since this tape has come out I have had about three hundred looks at that piece. I normally get anywhere from one to ten. In other words, there is enormous interest in the idea that Barack Obama is like Karl Marx. Of course, what I don't know is if all the interest is coming from the right. Still, clearly this tape has an immediate effect and it has now dominated the media coverage.
That won't be enough to be a game changer. So, what John McCain needs to do is continue keep making this an issue. McCain has a them upon which to attack Obama incessently for the next seven days and he must take it. Joe the Plumber opened up this attack, and that's what makes this tape so potentially devastating. What it really does is reinforce a major vulnerability. By reinforcing his initial gaffe, the idea that Barack Obama wants to redistribute our wealth becomes that much clear to the voters. The rest of the campaign will be spent dissecting Barack Obama because that's what happens when you are in the lead.
Now, a couple of days ago, I suggested that John McCain repeat over and over this quote.
FROM THOSE ACCORDING TO MEANS TO THOSE ACCORDING TO NEEDS
Now after a couple of days, I think that is likely too loaded a line of attack. Openly comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx (the author of this quote) is something that might make some sense for a provocative blogger, but it is likely too provocative for a Presidential campaign. Rather the McCain campaign should continue to attack using the same line they have been using.
That frankly is one of the most important concepts in Socialism or Marxism and so frankly it's much the same as calling him a Marxist only doing it in a more tactful way.
The most important thing the McCain campaign needs to verbalize in interviews, on the stump, and in commercials is this. Each and everytime a Democrat defends the Obama tax cut they proclaim that giving a tax cut to the middle class is not income redistribution. Cutting taxes for 95% of the people is not income redistribution.
The McCain campaign needs to make crystal clear that Barack Obama intends on getting the money for all of these tax cuts by raising taxes on those that are wealthy. This isn't merely raising the income tax. It is raising the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, the inheritance tax,
and a brand new payroll tax on the wealthy only (to go to fund the Social Security income of those that aren't as wealthy)
What Senator Obama believes is that those that already pay about 40% of their incomes toward don't pay enough and should pay more like 50%. Meanwhile those that pay ZERO in federal income taxes pay too much and they will pay less. That's the definition of income redistribution. If Senator McCain that point forcefully and does it over and over, he will make the sale that Senator Obama's plans are nothing more than income redistribution. (something that polls 84-13 against).
There are many ways to examine its effect. First of all, you go to the source. So far, it has had just over 1.5 million viewings on Youtube and approaching fifteen thousand comments. That is a stunning amount. Clearly, it has had an immediate impact. What remains to be seen is just how many viewings it will have in a week. If the video has had its run and we seen only a small gain from here then its impact from this angle will be limited. The magic number for me is ten million and one hundred thousand. If it gets ten million viewings and one hundred thousand comments, then it will have a serious impact on the campaign from the You Tube angle.
That's just one way to look at it though. The other way is how does this tape affect the news cycle. Let's take a look.
and...
Here is a sampling of the media coverage on the net. Finally, here is some anecdotal evidence. I wrote this piece comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx. Since this tape has come out I have had about three hundred looks at that piece. I normally get anywhere from one to ten. In other words, there is enormous interest in the idea that Barack Obama is like Karl Marx. Of course, what I don't know is if all the interest is coming from the right. Still, clearly this tape has an immediate effect and it has now dominated the media coverage.
That won't be enough to be a game changer. So, what John McCain needs to do is continue keep making this an issue. McCain has a them upon which to attack Obama incessently for the next seven days and he must take it. Joe the Plumber opened up this attack, and that's what makes this tape so potentially devastating. What it really does is reinforce a major vulnerability. By reinforcing his initial gaffe, the idea that Barack Obama wants to redistribute our wealth becomes that much clear to the voters. The rest of the campaign will be spent dissecting Barack Obama because that's what happens when you are in the lead.
Now, a couple of days ago, I suggested that John McCain repeat over and over this quote.
FROM THOSE ACCORDING TO MEANS TO THOSE ACCORDING TO NEEDS
Now after a couple of days, I think that is likely too loaded a line of attack. Openly comparing Barack Obama to Karl Marx (the author of this quote) is something that might make some sense for a provocative blogger, but it is likely too provocative for a Presidential campaign. Rather the McCain campaign should continue to attack using the same line they have been using.
INCOME OR WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION
That frankly is one of the most important concepts in Socialism or Marxism and so frankly it's much the same as calling him a Marxist only doing it in a more tactful way.
The most important thing the McCain campaign needs to verbalize in interviews, on the stump, and in commercials is this. Each and everytime a Democrat defends the Obama tax cut they proclaim that giving a tax cut to the middle class is not income redistribution. Cutting taxes for 95% of the people is not income redistribution.
The McCain campaign needs to make crystal clear that Barack Obama intends on getting the money for all of these tax cuts by raising taxes on those that are wealthy. This isn't merely raising the income tax. It is raising the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, the inheritance tax,
and a brand new payroll tax on the wealthy only (to go to fund the Social Security income of those that aren't as wealthy)
What Senator Obama believes is that those that already pay about 40% of their incomes toward don't pay enough and should pay more like 50%. Meanwhile those that pay ZERO in federal income taxes pay too much and they will pay less. That's the definition of income redistribution. If Senator McCain that point forcefully and does it over and over, he will make the sale that Senator Obama's plans are nothing more than income redistribution. (something that polls 84-13 against).
The Definitive Dossier on Obama's Marxism
The latest craze on the right blogosphere is this interview first dug up by Matt Drudge.
Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and Stop the ACLU also have details.
The most important quote is right here.
The reason that this is the most important quote is that it's the first time that Senator Obama has been quoted as believing that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to impose income redistribution. With up to four new Supreme Court Justices to be chosen in the next four years, this should send chills up the spines of all those that believe in limited government and the Judeo Christian founding of our nation.
Still, besides making this bold remark about the Supreme Court imposing income redistribution, nothing that Senator Obama says in this interview is new. In fact, he has frankly been rather open about his Marxism. As such, here is the full dossier of his Marxism.
1) From those with means to those with needs.
This is the center piece of Karl Marx' economic philosophy. It is the philosophy behind income redistribution. It is the philosophy behind his belief in Socialism. Capitalism, in the opinion of Marx, was flawed. It gave far too much to those at the top and left the workers, the proletariat, with the scraps of the economy. Marx believed that a better philosophy redistributed the wealth more fairly. As such, he created the economic philosophy of Socialism.
Barack Obama believes in this tenet. He said as much when he said, "when we spread the wealth it's better for everyone".
Beyond what he told Joe the Plumber, it's the center piece of his economic policy. He's said as much. He wants to raise taxes on the 5% that are most wealthy, those with means. In fact, when he defends his plan, he says "I want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans like Warren Buffet and myself, those with the ABILITY TO PAY." It isn't as though he is hiding his philosophy. He is flat out saying that he wants to take from THOSE WITH MEANS. Keep in mind that he doesn't merely want to raise income taxes on those making $250,000 and more. He wants to raise the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and re institute the inheritance tax. He even wants to create a whole new payroll tax on those making $250,000 to pay for the Social Security benefits of those that are poorer. He wants to raise taxes on all traditional groups associated with wealth. Again, he is making no bones about his intention on taking "FROM THOSE WITH MEANS".
Then, he wants to use the higher taxes from "THOSE WITH MEANS", and cut taxes on everyone else. This includes giving tax breaks to 40% of the country that pays no federal income tax. He will give these folks all sorts of tax credits. In other words, he wants to give to "THOSE WITH NEEDS". Again, there is nothing hidden about his philosophy. No one should be stunned by Obama's Marxism. That has been the center piece of his economic philosophy since he first ran for President. He will take from the top 5%, THOSE WITH MEANS, and give that money to everyone else, THOSE WITH NEEDS.
2) New rights and other government policies.
In the second debate, Barack Obama created a right found nowhere in the Constitution, the right to health care. This is also classic Marxism. In fact, he follows the same "from those with means, to those with needs" philosophy in health care. How does he plan on providing health care to those that can't afford it on their own? He will mandate that corporations and successful small business HAVE TO PROVIDE IT or face a penalty. Once again, he is following the "from those with means to those with needs" philosophy. It is a short step from making health care a right, to making a living wage, housing, retirement, and all sorts of other things a right as well.
There's more. Barack Obama has stipulated that he wants to create a new regulatory framework. Why? It's because he believes we have a "winner take all economy". He wants to use government regulation to even the playing field. Again, this is not new. The new regulatory framework and an end to the "winner take all economy" have both been the center piece of his economic agenda since the beginning.
How does he plan on creating new jobs? He wants the government to lead in creating them.
Having the government lead in creating new jobs is not new in his platform. It's also the way jobs are created in Socialist societies. Government spends money, consolidates more power, and they are the ones doling out the jobs. That's classic Marxism, Socialism, and its what Barack Obama has proudly said he wants to do as President.
3) Class Warfare.
I believe the Democrats themselves have perfected class warfare but Barack Obama especially. How often have we heard that Bush's tax cuts FOR THE RICH have cosolidated wealth in the few, stagnated wages for WORKERS, and has created an economy that passed most people by. Now, Bush cut the marginal tax rates on everyone THAT PAYS TAXES, and so when Barack Obama refers to the cuts as for the rich, what he is really saying is that anyone that pays federal income taxes is rich.
How often does he scoff at McCain's proposal to cut corporate taxes as a tax cut for wealthy corporations like the oil companies? Instead, he wants to create a windfall profits tax. If a company makes too much, he will tax that more than he taxes normal profits. Then, he'll take that extra tax and distribute it to those that aren't as well off. This is classic Karl Marx class warfare. Demonize the greedy capitalists, punish them, and distribute the punishment to the workers. Again, he has made absolutely no bones about this intention.
He does it on health care as well.
Attacking the capitalistic idea of mergers and demonizing it for creating the struggles of the workers is also classic Marxist class warfare. He even goes so far as to proclaim that he wants more government to solve it. Karl Marx, himself, couldn't have written the script better. Attack the system as favoring the big guy, and propose more government to solve it. It's classic class warfare followed by classic Socialism.
It's no different when discusses mortgages.
the common folk were taken advantage of by the vultures of a naked capitalistic system that ran wild. That is the message, and of course, his solution will be a plethora of new government regulations. In other words, naked capitalism caused the crisis, and government regulations will resolve it. Laced throughout his economic proposals, is first the narrative that the system as it is now takes advantage of the little guy in order to benefit the big guy. Of course, the solution is always more government. Once again, it is classic class warfare politics.
4) His radical association.
You want to find context to the plethora of radical associations that Barack Obama has. It is in his Marxist philosophy. Is it any surprise he spent six years as a member of the Socialist New Party? Is it any surprise that his mentor growing up was the Communist Frank Marshall Davis? Is it any surprise that he has ingratiated himself with the Communist and Anarchist William Ayers? Look at the main page for the group ACORN, a group that Barack Obama has had a two decade plus year relationship with.
They want the government to mandate health care, affordable housing, and a living wage. This is all on their site. This group is quasi Marxist itself.
Furthermore, Barack Obama has had associations with radicals like Father Pflegger and Reverend Wright. He's also spent a decade in academia where Marxism is accepted as a legitimate economic philosophy. Again, none of this is new, and so frankly, to say that Barack Obama part and parcel a Marxist is to merely explore the record that is available to the public.
Epilogue.
Now then, let me counter several of the points that Liberals are like to make. First, they will point out that the PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM is not new. That's true, however Barack Obama wants to specifically make it more progressive to those at the top in order to make it less progressive to those at the bottom. Barack Obama thinks that those that already give about 40% of their income to taxes aren't paying enough, while those that pay no income tax are paying too much. A progressive tax system is one thing, but mandating a redistribution of wealth is something totally different.
Second, is Barack Obama a Marxist? No, he is not totally a Marxist. Liberals will point out that it is ludicrous to point out he is a Marxist since Marx believed in the nationalization of industry, total government control, and a totalitarian state. That's true. Barack Obama pays lip service to the free markets from time to time. He doesn't want to create a totalitarian state. He doesn't want full nationalization of industry. He does however subscribe to the philosophy of wealth redistribution. He does want to partially nationalize health care. He does want the government playing a much more significant role in job creation and in regulation. The point is not to make Barack Obama an exact replica of Karl Marx. The point is how close do we want our President to be to Karl Marx. I reject everything that Karl Marx believed in. I want a President that is as far away from Marx as possible. Liberals seem to believe that if someone only believes in some of Marx' teachings that it is no longer an issue. It would be beyond the pale to compare Barack Obama to Karl Marx if our "only evidence" was his belief in wealth redistribution, government creation of jobs, more government role in regulation, and the partial nationalization of health care. I think that is far too much resemblance to Marx myself.
Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, and Stop the ACLU also have details.
The most important quote is right here.
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
The reason that this is the most important quote is that it's the first time that Senator Obama has been quoted as believing that it is the duty of the Supreme Court to impose income redistribution. With up to four new Supreme Court Justices to be chosen in the next four years, this should send chills up the spines of all those that believe in limited government and the Judeo Christian founding of our nation.
Still, besides making this bold remark about the Supreme Court imposing income redistribution, nothing that Senator Obama says in this interview is new. In fact, he has frankly been rather open about his Marxism. As such, here is the full dossier of his Marxism.
1) From those with means to those with needs.
This is the center piece of Karl Marx' economic philosophy. It is the philosophy behind income redistribution. It is the philosophy behind his belief in Socialism. Capitalism, in the opinion of Marx, was flawed. It gave far too much to those at the top and left the workers, the proletariat, with the scraps of the economy. Marx believed that a better philosophy redistributed the wealth more fairly. As such, he created the economic philosophy of Socialism.
Barack Obama believes in this tenet. He said as much when he said, "when we spread the wealth it's better for everyone".
Beyond what he told Joe the Plumber, it's the center piece of his economic policy. He's said as much. He wants to raise taxes on the 5% that are most wealthy, those with means. In fact, when he defends his plan, he says "I want to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans like Warren Buffet and myself, those with the ABILITY TO PAY." It isn't as though he is hiding his philosophy. He is flat out saying that he wants to take from THOSE WITH MEANS. Keep in mind that he doesn't merely want to raise income taxes on those making $250,000 and more. He wants to raise the capital gains tax, the corporate tax, and re institute the inheritance tax. He even wants to create a whole new payroll tax on those making $250,000 to pay for the Social Security benefits of those that are poorer. He wants to raise taxes on all traditional groups associated with wealth. Again, he is making no bones about his intention on taking "FROM THOSE WITH MEANS".
Then, he wants to use the higher taxes from "THOSE WITH MEANS", and cut taxes on everyone else. This includes giving tax breaks to 40% of the country that pays no federal income tax. He will give these folks all sorts of tax credits. In other words, he wants to give to "THOSE WITH NEEDS". Again, there is nothing hidden about his philosophy. No one should be stunned by Obama's Marxism. That has been the center piece of his economic philosophy since he first ran for President. He will take from the top 5%, THOSE WITH MEANS, and give that money to everyone else, THOSE WITH NEEDS.
2) New rights and other government policies.
In the second debate, Barack Obama created a right found nowhere in the Constitution, the right to health care. This is also classic Marxism. In fact, he follows the same "from those with means, to those with needs" philosophy in health care. How does he plan on providing health care to those that can't afford it on their own? He will mandate that corporations and successful small business HAVE TO PROVIDE IT or face a penalty. Once again, he is following the "from those with means to those with needs" philosophy. It is a short step from making health care a right, to making a living wage, housing, retirement, and all sorts of other things a right as well.
There's more. Barack Obama has stipulated that he wants to create a new regulatory framework. Why? It's because he believes we have a "winner take all economy". He wants to use government regulation to even the playing field. Again, this is not new. The new regulatory framework and an end to the "winner take all economy" have both been the center piece of his economic agenda since the beginning.
How does he plan on creating new jobs? He wants the government to lead in creating them.
Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters. Obama's investment would be over 10 years as part of two programs. The larger is $150 billion to create 5 million so-called "green collar" jobs to develop more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Sixty billion would go to a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama estimated that could generate nearly 2 million jobs, many of them in the construction industry that's been hit by the housing crisis.
Having the government lead in creating new jobs is not new in his platform. It's also the way jobs are created in Socialist societies. Government spends money, consolidates more power, and they are the ones doling out the jobs. That's classic Marxism, Socialism, and its what Barack Obama has proudly said he wants to do as President.
3) Class Warfare.
I believe the Democrats themselves have perfected class warfare but Barack Obama especially. How often have we heard that Bush's tax cuts FOR THE RICH have cosolidated wealth in the few, stagnated wages for WORKERS, and has created an economy that passed most people by. Now, Bush cut the marginal tax rates on everyone THAT PAYS TAXES, and so when Barack Obama refers to the cuts as for the rich, what he is really saying is that anyone that pays federal income taxes is rich.
How often does he scoff at McCain's proposal to cut corporate taxes as a tax cut for wealthy corporations like the oil companies? Instead, he wants to create a windfall profits tax. If a company makes too much, he will tax that more than he taxes normal profits. Then, he'll take that extra tax and distribute it to those that aren't as well off. This is classic Karl Marx class warfare. Demonize the greedy capitalists, punish them, and distribute the punishment to the workers. Again, he has made absolutely no bones about this intention.
He does it on health care as well.
There have been over 400 health care mergers in the last 10 years, and just two companies dominate a full third of the national market
....In the interview, for example, he argued that his proposals on health care and the economy, which call for a stronger government role and more regulation, were really about what works.
Attacking the capitalistic idea of mergers and demonizing it for creating the struggles of the workers is also classic Marxist class warfare. He even goes so far as to proclaim that he wants more government to solve it. Karl Marx, himself, couldn't have written the script better. Attack the system as favoring the big guy, and propose more government to solve it. It's classic class warfare followed by classic Socialism.
It's no different when discusses mortgages.
Here, in Nevada, we see how so many people are fighting for their American Dream. Because in so many ways, Felicitas and Francisco have lived the American Dream. Their story is not one of great wealth or privilege. Instead, it embodies the steady pursuit of simple dreams that has built this country from the bottom up
....Yet a predatory loan has turned this source of stability into an anchor of insecurity. Because a lender went for the easy buck, they are left struggling with ballooning interest rates and monthly mortgage payments. Because Washington has failed working people in this country, they are facing foreclosure, and the American Dream they sought for decades risks slipping away
the common folk were taken advantage of by the vultures of a naked capitalistic system that ran wild. That is the message, and of course, his solution will be a plethora of new government regulations. In other words, naked capitalism caused the crisis, and government regulations will resolve it. Laced throughout his economic proposals, is first the narrative that the system as it is now takes advantage of the little guy in order to benefit the big guy. Of course, the solution is always more government. Once again, it is classic class warfare politics.
4) His radical association.
You want to find context to the plethora of radical associations that Barack Obama has. It is in his Marxist philosophy. Is it any surprise he spent six years as a member of the Socialist New Party? Is it any surprise that his mentor growing up was the Communist Frank Marshall Davis? Is it any surprise that he has ingratiated himself with the Communist and Anarchist William Ayers? Look at the main page for the group ACORN, a group that Barack Obama has had a two decade plus year relationship with.
They want the government to mandate health care, affordable housing, and a living wage. This is all on their site. This group is quasi Marxist itself.
Furthermore, Barack Obama has had associations with radicals like Father Pflegger and Reverend Wright. He's also spent a decade in academia where Marxism is accepted as a legitimate economic philosophy. Again, none of this is new, and so frankly, to say that Barack Obama part and parcel a Marxist is to merely explore the record that is available to the public.
Epilogue.
Now then, let me counter several of the points that Liberals are like to make. First, they will point out that the PROGRESSIVE TAX SYSTEM is not new. That's true, however Barack Obama wants to specifically make it more progressive to those at the top in order to make it less progressive to those at the bottom. Barack Obama thinks that those that already give about 40% of their income to taxes aren't paying enough, while those that pay no income tax are paying too much. A progressive tax system is one thing, but mandating a redistribution of wealth is something totally different.
Second, is Barack Obama a Marxist? No, he is not totally a Marxist. Liberals will point out that it is ludicrous to point out he is a Marxist since Marx believed in the nationalization of industry, total government control, and a totalitarian state. That's true. Barack Obama pays lip service to the free markets from time to time. He doesn't want to create a totalitarian state. He doesn't want full nationalization of industry. He does however subscribe to the philosophy of wealth redistribution. He does want to partially nationalize health care. He does want the government playing a much more significant role in job creation and in regulation. The point is not to make Barack Obama an exact replica of Karl Marx. The point is how close do we want our President to be to Karl Marx. I reject everything that Karl Marx believed in. I want a President that is as far away from Marx as possible. Liberals seem to believe that if someone only believes in some of Marx' teachings that it is no longer an issue. It would be beyond the pale to compare Barack Obama to Karl Marx if our "only evidence" was his belief in wealth redistribution, government creation of jobs, more government role in regulation, and the partial nationalization of health care. I think that is far too much resemblance to Marx myself.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Fairness: The New Euphemism for Socialism
In response to this piece in which I compared Barack Obama to Karl Marx, I received this comment.
Embedded in this comment is several of the buzz words and ideas that Socialist thinkers use to create euphemisms for their plans. The most prominent euphemism is this idea of "FAIRNESS". How can one person make $100,000,000 while another only makes $25,000, that's not fair. How can one person afford to buy multiple homes while another can't afford health insurance, that's not fair.
In fact, the idea of "fairness" is at the heart of the progressive tax system.
In fact, one comment in response to this article frames this idea of "fairness" perfectly.
Now, a less euphemistic means of describing this issue was done by the father of Socialism, Karl Marx.
There is of course absolutely no difference between the idea of fairness and the idea of taking from each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need. Each is a bedrock of Socialism. The only difference today is directly quoting Karl Marx gets you nowhere. Rather, quoting his message with new and better terminology gets you elected.
The roots of Socialism is the idea of class warfare. The wealthy have means, and thus more must be taken from them. The middle class doesn't have as much and thus more must be given to them. The idea of class warfare and Socialism are alive and well in today's America. They have just taken on new more euphemistic terminologies like "fairness".
I think that it is not so much Capitalism which is into question here.It is more the deviance of it represented by the Chicago school which is about a complete deregulation of the markets.When you think of it, is it fair to have someone make 100000$ a month just by buying and selling stocks??
Sure hard work is a value that you american cherish more that some other countries and it is one of the reasons why you have have become this great power. But this is not about earning money from your hard work anymore, this is only about how much money you already have and how much you can invest.
Now there is something else,when inequity increases above a certain level in a country, it is always a source of social troubles. What is the point in being one of the wealthiest country in the world on an average basis if you cannot provide your population with health care?? This has been done with success in many countries (In France for example) without destroying companies or jobs.
Embedded in this comment is several of the buzz words and ideas that Socialist thinkers use to create euphemisms for their plans. The most prominent euphemism is this idea of "FAIRNESS". How can one person make $100,000,000 while another only makes $25,000, that's not fair. How can one person afford to buy multiple homes while another can't afford health insurance, that's not fair.
In fact, the idea of "fairness" is at the heart of the progressive tax system.
Now, I know that there are tens of millions of people who believe, as I do, that a progressive tax is about fairness, about not just the ability to pay, but the degree to which a wealthier person benefits from our common possessions. That position, like any that disagrees with a Republican position, has been dubbed “elitist.”
If that’s the case, then I say “Pass the arugula!” As I’ve said before, I come from a long line of working-class people, civil servants and tradesman, and I’m in the lower end of that economic bracket myself. Where I come from, a man takes care of his responsibilities and doesn’t complain. He pays his taxes. And when he gets somewhere, he remembers where he came from.
I would love to hear from all of the other “elitists” out there, the teacher, the construction worker, the waitress, the meatpacker, who think that people ought to pay their fair share. People who understand that the burden of these hard times is not falling on those who earn over $250,000.00. It’s “elitists” like us that have carried the weight.
In fact, one comment in response to this article frames this idea of "fairness" perfectly.
The REALITY is this!!!! No matter what anyone says, an extra 2-3% to anyone making over $250,000 a year is a drop in the bucket. I'm willing to do my part and I'm a Democrat to boot. Elitist, NOT AT ALL. PROUD AMERICAN WILLING TO HELP GET AMERICA BACK ON IT'S FEET....HELL YES!!!!! Obama/Biden '08
Now, a less euphemistic means of describing this issue was done by the father of Socialism, Karl Marx.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need (or needs)
There is of course absolutely no difference between the idea of fairness and the idea of taking from each according to their ability and giving to each according to their need. Each is a bedrock of Socialism. The only difference today is directly quoting Karl Marx gets you nowhere. Rather, quoting his message with new and better terminology gets you elected.
The roots of Socialism is the idea of class warfare. The wealthy have means, and thus more must be taken from them. The middle class doesn't have as much and thus more must be given to them. The idea of class warfare and Socialism are alive and well in today's America. They have just taken on new more euphemistic terminologies like "fairness".
More Handouts: The Slippery Slope of the Bailout
Word on the "street" has it that soon major insurers like New York Life maybe part of the bailout bill passed last month.
We also have word that automakers may soon be included..
Meanwhile, Barney Frank is demanding, not asking,for more handouts to consumers.
Now, most people were unnerved by Frank's reference to "a lot of rich people that we can tax" in this interview. I was most unnerved by his total disregard for deficit spending.
Such is the slippery slope of this bailout. Now, that we have bailed out and taken a stake in banks, there is virtually nothing that the government can't do for business and consumers. Soon, both the insurers and automakers will also be quasi Socialist. With a massive $700 billion expenditure under their belts, a left wing government in control, the new rounds of spending (and eventually taxing) will be astronomical.
There is of course still a looming credit card debt crisis.
Given the size and scope of the mortgage bailout, it's will be near impossible for the economic populists that will soon control the government not to extend their hand to struggling consumers unable to pay their credit card debt.
It won't be much better if John McCain stages a stunning comeback. He is already on record as supporting a near $300 billion bailout of distressed mortgage borrowers. We are headed quickly into a head on collision with Socialism and the most frightening part is that it appears both the folks in D.C. and the folks that will put them there want it.
While the rest of Wall Street got clobbered again Friday, a handful of insurance stocks rallied sharply on speculation that the Treasury Department may soon invest in companies in the battered industry.
After being down most of the morning, shares of MetLife (MET, Fortune 500) ended the day up 7%. Hartford Financial Services Group (HIG, Fortune 500) jumped 16% at the end of Friday's session after being down in the morning session. Prudential (PRU, Fortune 500) closed more than 6% higher after starting the day lower.
And Aflac (AFL, Fortune 500), the health and life insurance company that reported Thursday that its earnings had tumbled 76% in the fiscal third quarter, gained 7% by the end of the trading session Friday.
We also have word that automakers may soon be included..
Even as the Treasury began approving capital injections for about 20 regional banks on Friday, including $7.7 billion for a merger between PNC Financial and National City, carmakers pressed for their financing subsidiaries to be eligible for a part of the bailout fund because they provide a major channel of credit to consumers through car and other types of loans
Meanwhile, Barney Frank is demanding, not asking,for more handouts to consumers.
Now, most people were unnerved by Frank's reference to "a lot of rich people that we can tax" in this interview. I was most unnerved by his total disregard for deficit spending.
Such is the slippery slope of this bailout. Now, that we have bailed out and taken a stake in banks, there is virtually nothing that the government can't do for business and consumers. Soon, both the insurers and automakers will also be quasi Socialist. With a massive $700 billion expenditure under their belts, a left wing government in control, the new rounds of spending (and eventually taxing) will be astronomical.
There is of course still a looming credit card debt crisis.
But some banks and credit-card companies may be exacerbating their problems. To boost profits and get ahead of coming regulation, they're hiking interest rates. But that's making it harder for consumers to keep up. That'll only make tomorrow's pain worse. Innovest estimates that credit-card issuers will take a $41 billion hit from rotten debt this year and a $96 billion blow in 2009.
Those losses, in turn, will wend their way through the $365 billion market for securities backed by credit-card debt. As with mortgages, banks bundle groups of so-called credit-card receivables, essentially consumers' outstanding balances, and sell them to big investors such as hedge funds and pension funds. Big issuers offload roughly 70% of their credit-card debt.
But it's getting harder for banks to find buyers for that debt. Interest rates have been rising on credit-card securities, a sign that investor appetite is waning. To help entice buyers, credit-card companies are having to put up more money as collateral, a guarantee in case something goes wrong with the securities. Mortgage lenders, in sharp contrast, typically aren't asked to do this—at least not yet. With consumers so shaky, now isn't a good time to put more skin in the game. "Costs will go up for issuers," warns Dennis Moroney of the consultancy Tower Group.
Sure, the credit-card market is just a fraction of the $11.9 trillion mortgage market. But sometimes the losses can be more painful. That's because most credit-card debt is unsecured, meaning consumers don't have to make down payments when opening up their accounts. If they stop making monthly payments and the account goes bad, there are no underlying assets for credit-card companies to recoup. With mortgages, in contrast, some banks are protected both by down payments and by the ability to recover at least some of the money by selling the property.
Given the size and scope of the mortgage bailout, it's will be near impossible for the economic populists that will soon control the government not to extend their hand to struggling consumers unable to pay their credit card debt.
It won't be much better if John McCain stages a stunning comeback. He is already on record as supporting a near $300 billion bailout of distressed mortgage borrowers. We are headed quickly into a head on collision with Socialism and the most frightening part is that it appears both the folks in D.C. and the folks that will put them there want it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
