PDA

View Full Version : Economics Obama's Economics


HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 09:32 AM
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551

Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 28, 2008 4:20 PM PT

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.

During his NAACP speech earlier this month, Sen. Obama repeated the term at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati.

Democrat Barack Obama arrives in Washington on Monday. On the campaign trail, Obama has styled himself a centrist. But a look at those who've served as his advisers and mentors over the years shows a far more left-leaning tilt to his background — and to his politics.
And as president, "we'll ensure that economic justice is served," he asserted. "That's what this election is about." Obama never spelled out the meaning of the term, but he didn't have to. His audience knew what he meant, judging from its thumping approval.

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

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

In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.

But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)?

Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed.

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."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment.

"They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

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.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, 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.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa.

As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans."

His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development."

Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. 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 in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer."

He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud.

Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice."

He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word.

But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

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

beer bacon
07-30-2008, 09:38 AM
Saw title of editorial, stopped reading.

chiefforlife
07-30-2008, 09:53 AM
Saw title of editorial, stopped reading.

I read a little further, but not much.

banyon
07-30-2008, 10:29 AM
MCCAIN IS A NAZI SO THERE!

Donger
07-30-2008, 10:31 AM
Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

How many of these are accurate depictions of what Barack Hussein wants?

beer bacon
07-30-2008, 10:38 AM
Saw name of poster, stopped reading.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 10:45 AM
Ignoring what the mans positions are, the economic relaity of it, and the consequences does not change facts

StcChief
07-30-2008, 10:58 AM
Obama wants "JUST US" in his economics to make the reparation go smoother

Donger
07-30-2008, 11:00 AM
Saw name of poster, stopped reading.

That's a shame. I'm actually curious to know how many of those are accurate, if any.

SNR
07-30-2008, 11:47 AM
Saw name of poster, stopped reading.You actually might want to read that post. He questions the article

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:14 PM
Ignoring what the mans positions are, the economic relaity of it, and the consequences does not change facts

A slanted distorted version of his positions won't change facts either.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 12:20 PM
A slanted distorted version of his positions won't change facts either.

Avoid reading it so you wont have to try to understand it.

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:21 PM
Avoid reading it so you wont have to try to understand it.

I read it. It was a bunch of "He's a Marxist!" name calling BS. Reads like something BucEyedPea could've authored while she was making toast.

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 12:27 PM
Then you clearly did not read it and if you did you chose to not comprehend it. Mr Donger did pick up on the key salient claims of the Obama Campaign but his request for more information has gone un rewarded.

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:32 PM
Then you clearly did not read it and if you did you chose to not comprehend it. Mr Donger did pick up on the key salient claims of the Obama Campaign but his request for more information has gone un rewarded.

Are you saying that the words "Marxist", "communist", and "collectivist" don't appear in the article and attempt to connect Obama with them?

Donger
07-30-2008, 12:35 PM
Are you saying that the words "Marxist", "communist", and "collectivist" don't appear in the article and attempt to connect Obama with them?

Doesn't Barack Hussein favor redistribution of wealth in the form of vastly higher taxation of "rich"?

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:38 PM
Doesn't Barack Hussein favor redistribution of wealth in the form of vastly higher taxation of "rich"?

See HCF? Donger's on board with the broad brush.

Donger
07-30-2008, 12:39 PM
See HCF? Donger's on board with the broad brush.

It's a simple question.

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:41 PM
It's a simple question.

I gave you an appropriate answer for the game you wanted to play.

Donger
07-30-2008, 12:42 PM
I gave you an appropriate answer for the game you wanted to play.

No, you didn't.

Does Barack Hussein want to raise taxes on the wealthy? Yes or no?

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:48 PM
No, you didn't.

Does Barack Hussein want to raise taxes on the wealthy? Yes or no?

GAME OVER.

Donger
07-30-2008, 12:51 PM
GAME OVER.

Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.

CLINTON: That's right.

OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.

CLINTON: Absolutely

OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.

So, we have confirmation that Barack Hussein wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. Why does he want to do that?

banyon
07-30-2008, 12:53 PM
So, we have confirmation that Barack Hussein wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. Why does he want to do that?

Because he's Satan? Or a Marxist version of Satan?

Donger
07-30-2008, 12:59 PM
Because he's Satan? Or a Marxist version of Satan?

I would imagine that Barack Hussein wants to raise taxes on the rich because they have more money to take.

banyon
07-30-2008, 01:00 PM
I would imagine that Barack Hussein wants to raise taxes on the rich because they have more money to take.

Yeah, but Satan would probably do that too, right?

mlyonsd
07-30-2008, 01:01 PM
I would imagine that Barack Hussein wants to raise taxes on the rich because they have more money to take.

Well there's that, and the fact it's easier to get elected when you promise stuff to the majority and tell them the minority is going to pay for it.

Donger
07-30-2008, 01:06 PM
Yeah, but Satan would probably do that too, right?

I don't know. However, it seems clear that Barack Hussein wants to take money from the rich and "invest" it in programs that help people who do not have as much money.

Would you agree with that?

banyon
07-30-2008, 01:06 PM
Well there's that, and the fact it's easier to get elected when you promise stuff to the majority and tell them the minority is going to pay for it.

Or when you roll back the promises your predecessor made to everyone and made the majority and minority's grandchildren pay for it. ;)

banyon
07-30-2008, 01:07 PM
I don't know.

I'm telling you, as a leftist, I'm pretty tight with Satan, so I'm pretty sure the answer's "yes".

Donger
07-30-2008, 01:08 PM
I'm telling you, as a leftist, I'm pretty tight with Satan, so I'm pretty sure the answer's "yes".

Sorry, I added to my post.

mlyonsd
07-30-2008, 01:15 PM
Or when you roll back the promises your predecessor made to everyone and made the majority and minority's grandchildren pay for it. ;)

Newsflash....cutting spending while keeping revenue at it's current level is another way to pay for things. Without raising taxes.

I know that probably seems pretty backwards to you though. :p

HonestChieffan
07-30-2008, 01:24 PM
not to mention increasing revenues from a growth based economic program

banyon
07-30-2008, 02:03 PM
not to mention increasing revenues from a growth based economic program

Yeah, that's been going gangbusters lately. Great plan. Cut taxes, add pixie dust, and ...whoops record deficit.

banyon
07-30-2008, 02:05 PM
Newsflash....cutting spending while keeping revenue at it's current level is another way to pay for things. Without raising taxes.

I know that probably seems pretty backwards to you though. :p

That'd be fine with me. I consider myself a budget hawk, but the tough part comes when we have to identify what to cut. For the last 20 years, Republicans haven't wanted to do that part.

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 05:41 PM
Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist.

Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

This is the part that gets me thinking these polls have to be BS---

Who are they polling, 12 year olds?

I'm beginning to think that this whole thing is a media fiasco and this guy is all hype. As bad as McCain is, I really think that we are in for a big surprise November 8.

I'm talking Nixon vs. McGovern big.

BucEyedPea
07-30-2008, 05:43 PM
This is the part that gets me thinking these polls have to be BS---

Who are they polling, 12 year olds?

I'm beginning to think that this whole thing is a media fiasco and this guy is all hype. As bad as McCain is, I really think that we are in for a big surprise November 8.

I'm talking Nixon vs. McGovern big.

I'd have to say that the media influences first then the polls follow. So it's how people get educated. That and most Americans are already socialst lite even R's. Just look at that political quiz and where some Rs came out. The center has shifted over time to the left. That is the new center. It really is a joke. I mean look at how many though Mac was anti-war because he was critical of how Bush handled Iraq—not that he did it.

banyon
07-30-2008, 05:48 PM
I'd have to say that the media influences first then the polls follow. So it's how people get educated. That and most Americans are already socialst lite even R's. Just look at that political quiz and where some Rs came out. The center has shifted over time to the left. That is the new center. It really is a joke. I mean look at how many though Mac was anti-war because he was critical of how Bush handled Iraq—not that he did it.

All these people are socialists on your scale from 1685.

***SPRAYER
07-30-2008, 06:45 PM
I'd have to say that the media influences first then the polls follow. So it's how people get educated. That and most Americans are already socialst lite even R's. Just look at that political quiz and where some Rs came out. The center has shifted over time to the left. That is the new center. It really is a joke. I mean look at how many though Mac was anti-war because he was critical of how Bush handled Iraq—not that he did it.


Well... you are onto something. Because both the Republicans and Democrats are moving us toward socialism. In fact, I think it's already a done deal.

All I can say is, the shit will hit the fan (I'm thinking another ten years give or take a few) and America will wind up with a dictator. I'm hoping for a military dictatorship, but it very well could be a judicial dictatorship by fiat.

HonestChieffan
07-31-2008, 07:10 AM
The facts remain, aside from his defenders spinning like tops to try to hide them. We can see the future and its a very bad thing for the country.

patteeu
07-31-2008, 09:02 AM
That'd be fine with me. I consider myself a budget hawk, but the tough part comes when we have to identify what to cut. For the last 20 years, Republicans haven't wanted to do that part.

Republicans have to accept the blame for the truth in this post, but it sure would be easier of there was bipartisan interest in spending restraint.

***SPRAYER
07-31-2008, 01:24 PM
I think B.O. intends to implement some good ol' fashioned Black Liberation Theology. After all, it's working like a charm in Zimbabwe.

:drool:

tiptap
07-31-2008, 01:34 PM
I think B.O. intends to implement some good ol' fashioned Black Liberation Theology. After all, it's working like a charm in Zimbabwe.

:drool:

You know, someone who roots for a dictatorship in the US will find it easy to see the Black Liberation Theology as a model. You so lack for imagination for answers.

Chiefnj2
07-31-2008, 01:35 PM
When Bush’s 2001 tax cuts went to the Senate floor, McCain was one of two Senate Republicans to vote “no.” He said at the time, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” Two years later, another tax-cut bill came to the floor, and McCain voted against it again, citing the rising deficit.

RaiderH8r
07-31-2008, 01:51 PM
I would imagine that Barack Hussein wants to raise taxes on the rich because they have more money to take.

If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on Paul's support. There are a lot more Pauls in this world than Peters....he he...peters.

The Mad Crapper
10-13-2010, 01:04 PM
Saw title of editorial, stopped reading.

I read a little further, but not much.

MCCAIN IS A NAZI SO THERE!

:LOL:

These are the idiots who put a Communist in the WH. :drool:

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1983875&spid=32364

The Mad Crapper
10-22-2010, 05:52 AM
Jobless benefits about to crash

With no end in sight to the nation’s high unemployment, the government program to help the jobless is heading for a crash.

And with Democrats and Republicans now divided over what used to be routine extensions of unemployment insurance benefits, there’s little prospect anytime soon for the sort of costly and complex rescue that’s necessary, according to one of the program’s champions.

“I am worried,” said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), who got some temporary unemployment fixes in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. “It is going to take a degree of bipartisanship ... that we haven’t seen.”

The sour economy, with unemployment stuck above 9 percent for a year and a half, has been the backdrop for this fall’s midterm elections, but long-term fixes for the unemployment insurance system have hardly been a hot campaign issue.

Democratic and Republican leaders alike say that helping the unemployed is a top priority. But critics say neither side has done enough to avert the looming insolvency of the outmoded unemployment system, which reaches less than half of the jobless and yet is shuddering under $40 billion in debt.

States, which have already raised employment taxes, will be forced to cut benefits even further next year without the kind of overhaul of unemployment insurance that has always seemed to slip off the congressional agenda, according to McDermott, who’s tried for years to modernize a program that has changed little since it was created in 1935.

A stop-gap measure that allows states to borrow from the federal government interest free expires in January, and the debt will start growing sharply, hitting $65 billion in 2013, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The program, which splits funding with the states, is financed through federal and state taxes paid by both employers and employees. Like other forms of insurance, the idea is that the revenue builds up in the good times and is drawn down in bad. The federal government makes up for any temporary shortfall in a bad recession, with loans to the states that have typically been paid back quickly when surpluses return during economic recoveries.

The problem really started after the 1991 recession, when a “jobless recovery” failed to generate the typical unemployment insurance surpluses, leaving states playing catch-up. Another jobless recovery after the 2001 recession set states back further.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43777.html#ixzz136E3LUft

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

patteeu
12-05-2011, 07:59 PM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I didn't realize that suzzer99 was a woman.

HonestChieffan
12-05-2011, 08:49 PM
Somebody has to take care of allllllllll my babies

BigChiefFan
12-05-2011, 08:53 PM
I'm sure McCain and the Keating Five would have stopped the corruption. Same wolves in sheep's clothing.