Why I called Obama a man whose policies are out of the Communist Manifesto
|
|
Published July 31st, 2008
Update (Aug. 1): Lest you think that I am the only one thinking this, check out Investors Business Daily.
—–
Today on “Blog Bunker”, Sirius 110, I made a statement based off of a quote from Barack Obama from an interview he conducted with the Wall Street Journal.
Here’s the quote:
“Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers,” he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.
The Journal also reported that a key component of Obama policy is:
The U.S. becoming what he called a “winner-take-all” economy, where the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy.
Meaning…he wants to make it more equitable…aka, a redistribution of wealth.
Was Teddy Roosevelt a communist too? Or Reagan?
Opposing a gilded age society where only the top .5% have any wealth and power is not communism, it’s sanity.
Be careful with this Communist Manifesto line. I know someone who got into a little hot water with that analogy a few years back.
I always thought the Communist Manifesto stated that as the disparity between the wealthy “bourgeoisie” and the laboring “proletariats” grew, you would eventually reach a point where the labor class could no longer support itself, and would be dependent on support from the wealthy for subsistence. At this point, “the revolution” would occur, with the result of the communist society. Such i believe was the history of the rise of Communism in Russia, China, Cuba, and others.
As such, wouldn’t it make sense that attempts to close the wealth gap would actually be helping to stave off the spectre of Communism? While policies that further exacerbated the disparity between the wealthy and working classes would only push our society closer to a state resembling those of countries who succumbed to the false promises of Communism?
I do think (and hope) it highly unlikely that the US will ever adopt the model of Communism for as long as it exists as a nation (despite the fact that no where does our Constitution declare us a capitalist society). However, i do think it funny that whose who promote policies that, by Marx’s judgment, will help avert the setting for a communist revolution are called “Communist”, usually by those whose policies could very well bring about the rise of Communist sentiment.
JH - JR is referring to the Communists belief in the redistribution of wealth - the belief that all materials are the possession of the State, not an indivisual. When these Revolutions happened, all property is seized by the State, i.e. - Russia and Cuba. Obama’s plan for confiscatory taxes, especially those aimed only at high income earners, which are then redistributed to the poor and middle class in the form of entitlement programs or flat out cash to poor people (i.e.-the earned income tax credit) may not be specifically mentioned in the Communist Manifesto. But let’s face it, that the spirit of communism - all of your belongings are the property of the state - the state just let’s you hold on to some of it at its discretion.
Citizens of the World, Unite! This is our moment. I am the Messiah! I am Neo from the Matrix… I am the Chosen One…
The top marginal tax rate in the US has been as high as 94%. For half of the 20th century it was over 70%. I believe it now stands at 35%. IIRC, Obama is talking about bumping it back up ~5%. Even if you include his still incomplete ideas on social security reform, you get ~55%, just above where it was *after* Reagan’s massive tax cuts. Hardly communist. And the point of communism is the elimination of class, a shift from “all men are created equal” to “all men shall be made equal”. If you think thats Obama’s goal, you haven’t been paying attention.
BTW, at what point to taxes become “confiscatory”?
Seriously, the right’s complaints about taxes border on the insane. Under Obama’s plan the majority of Americans would pay less in taxes, a small and extremely wealthy minority would pay more. Specifically, the average middle class family would save $1,000 per year under Obama’s plan. What is really confiscatory - taxing the middle class to pay for the society that the ultra-rich benefit the most from, or fairly taxing all Americans?
What I really want to know is, when did the GOP base become mindless robots of the super-rich and the oil companies?
As one of my former Republican friends told me recently, if you are still a Republican you aren’t paying attention.
Under Obama taxes would go up for a lot more people, and a lot more than 5%. He would increase taxes on energy, on payroll, estates, and income. In fact, the effective tax rate would probably approach 70% again.
Besides, the “rich” are not some slacker scions. They are often people with small businesses who create jobs. Tax them more and see how many jobs you (don’t) create.
Apparently, Democrats/Socialists like Ragnar aren’t paying attention.
You forgot the other important aspect of communism (and fascism, which is about the same): Taking away the right of the citizens to defend themselves.
Ron - where are you getting this? Seems like your “facts” are something that was passed in one of the wonderful untrue B.S. Obama-bashing e-mails. Karl Rove’s ghost lives on…
The WaPo did a breakdown of the tax increases under Obama and McCain. The fact is that most Americans - middle class Americans - will pay substantially more under McCain than they will under Obama.
If you want to deal in facts, deal in facts and real news sources, not the GOP fantasy world where Democrats are Socialists. Which, if I can get on a soapbox, is truly offensive.
There are millions of us who are proud members of the Democratic Party who have served this nation in the Armed Forces in war and peace, who have fought Communism and Fascism - and to now have some uneducated members of our society equate our reasonable (and in the context of our planet, generally center/right-leaning) political beliefs with Socialism, Fascism or Communism is offensive.
Just as much as I don’t want to hear some left-wing nut call Bush or the GOP fascists or NAZIs I similar don’t want to hear some right-wing nuts calling the Democrats communists or socialists. It isn’t true, it isn’t factual, and it is offensive.
Wow, lets look at this piece by piece.
The “a lot” is questionable (~5% of the population), but since with a simple read of McCain’s plan income taxes would not go up for anyone, this is true. With Obama’s plan, taxes would go down for roughly the bottom 95% of income earners, and significantly more than McCain as you got into the middle quintile of income earners. The crossover point looks to be about 100K. Those making less than 100K would get bigger tax breaks under Obama, those over 100K would get bigger breaks under McCain.
The avg for those making over $1 million a year would be 9.9%.
Haven’t seen this anywhere.
He has proposed reinstating FICA taxes for income above $250K. So anyone making > $250K a year would see a tax increase under this plan. McCain has stated he has not ruled out raising FICA taxes to address social security.
His plan is to retain the estate tax for estates above $3.5 million ($7 million for a married couple), about 0.03% of all households. Thats also where its already schedule to jump to next year.
Already covered above.
Effective? you mean marginal i assume. Just curious, where did you get this figure?
Much of the above can be found on the Tax Policy Center website.
“He would increase taxes on energy”
“Haven’t seen this anywhere.”
Look here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama
BK, if that is what Ron meant, i misunderstood. As his other listed taxes were all direct taxes on citizens, I assumed me meant something like a point of sale or consumption tax, not a “windfall” corporate profits tax.
it’s unfortunate that this blog, in addition to the just-plain-silliness of equating taxes with communism and/or socialism, is promoting disingenous and dishonest propoganda from the mccain campaign. i am encouraged by what appear to be a lot of very sane people here pushing back against this truly absurd and childish notion.
as an american citizen, my lot is common with yours. when you need help i am there; when i need help hopefully you are there. to suggest that people who are financially successful have no obligation to the country that made their success possible is extraordinarily selfish and mean spirited. do republicans really want a reputation of “i’ve got mine, screw you”?
thanks for having “open” comments. i appreciate an opportunity to join the conversation.
I’ve never been hired by a poor person.
Those who are “financially successful” don’t have an “obligation” to me. See, that’s what freedom is.
Remember that? Freedom? Sure, the wealthier shoulder a larger burden of the shared cost of government. But I’d like the financially successful to become more financially successful and create business and jobs so that many others can do the same.
I’m not interested in pummeling the wealthy with taxes while the rest of the economy wonders where its job-creating investment capital went.
well, brian kirwin, then i guess you would have no problem with the blue states which subsidize the red states keep their money?
I would have no problem if the federal government got rid of a lot of spending.
no, no, you’re right, brian kirwin, i am sick to death of my taxes being used to subsidize the lazy people in red states who can’t get it together to pay for their own services and get off the welfare wagon.
Something that I have yet to hear anyone mention in this blog, or for that matter, anywhere else is that IF Obama wins, he will instantly repeal Bush’s tax cut! Even if he doesn’t, it will expire soon. There is one tax increase that is automatic across the board. If you dont believe it, compare a persons tax rate that makes for example 50k when Clinton was in office to what that same person is paying now.
Secondly, Obama is talking about a tax cut for 95% of Americans. How is this even possible when 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes??? Ok, so they pay payroll taxes now, but then get it all back (and then some) at the end of the year.
As for redistribution of wealth… I grew up in a 800 sq. ft. home. My dad worked in a GM factory for 30 years. We had a roof over our head and food in our belly. We didnt’ have much, but were thankful for what we had. Upon graduation from High School, I went into the service and served my country proudly for 4 years before being injured in the 91 Gulf War. Rather than sitting around waiting for a hand out from society, I earned a college education and went on to get an MBA degree. I am now fairly successful. My wife and I make a combined income of 120k. We are by no means rich, but I have earned every penny I have by the sweat of my brow. I feel absolutely no obligation to give up what I have to someone who doesn’t want to put forth the same effort I did to get ahead.
The majority of the wealthy in this country have earned thier way to the top. If half of the lazy asses in this country would put forth the effort, they could get ahead too! There is nothing stopping them. Democrats of today thrive on the needy. With more dependency of big government, the more power they have to control society. Like it or not, we live in a Capitolist society that works if you let it. But the way it works is from the top down. Economics 101!!! If you dont like it at the bottom, then work your way to the top!
Here is an interesting thought to leave you with. WHAT IF:
The United States were to split in half. The Conservatives on one side and the Liberals on the other side. Split all assets of the country evenly. Then have a HUGE WALL down the middle so that each side could not influence the other, or trade with the other. Then wait 20 years. I bet that the liberal side would be in such moral and economical decay that it would resemble a third world nation. While the Conservative side would prosper and flourish.
Different scenerio, same concept: Economic Stimulous to the EXTREME!
Wipe the slate clean and say that no one has any money or possessions, then give every person in the country 1,000,000 (1 million) dollars. With some exceptions, how long do you think it will be before the poor are poor again, and the rich are rich again?