Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Spreading socialsim
Karl Marx once wrote, "A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis." I thought about that quote while reading the following post from the Campaign for Working Families PAC's Web site. This is good stuff:
I have a lot to say today, friends, so please bear with me. I’d like to begin by going back to a point in yesterday’s report, just in case you missed it, because it is a very significant point.
There is no question that our nation is grappling with a major economic crisis right now. As we have outlined in past reports, the roots of this crisis can be traced back to liberal policies enacted by Jimmy Carter, expanded by Bill Clinton, pushed by leftwing groups like ACORN and defended by liberal Democrats in Congress. The question before us in this election is: How do we respond to this crisis?
Will America embrace free market capitalism or will we abandon our traditions and take a radical lurch to the left with the socialist policies espoused by Barack Obama? Will this new economic crisis lead to a new revolution in America? That is the question we will face in 21 days.
In our report yesterday, we told you about a plumber who approached Barack Obama during a campaign event in Ohio over the weekend. As you know, Obama has repeatedly promised to raises taxes on successful entrepreneurs and families, and this plumber called him out on it. He asked Obama, “Do you believe in the American dream? I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”
Obama responded by saying, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Let me again quote the German philosopher and founder of the communist ideology, Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In other words, you will produce what you can using your talents and then government will use its power to take your earnings and “spread” them to others who are unable or unwilling to do as well. “Spreading the wealth” may sound nice, but it has never worked. The “workers’ paradise” Marx dreamed of was tried in the Soviet Union with its mandated results and planned economies. The Soviet Union no longer exists.
But Obama wants to try it here. He constantly talks of tax policy in terms of “fairness” – whether or not it actually works. Consider this exchange with ABC’s Charlie Gibson during the April 16th Democrat primary debate on the subject of raising capital gains taxes:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. …
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
So, whether or not the policy is sound doesn’t matter. What matters is Barack Obama’s sense of “fairness.” Government will decide what’s “fair,” government will decide how much of your hard-earned income you get to keep, government will determine what your “needs” are.
The Ohio plumber who questioned Obama’s tax plan ought to be running for public office. He’s got it exactly right -- Obama’s tax policies will punish success and they will punish working families. John McCain is hammering this theme on the campaign trial in Pennsylvania today.
Every dollar the government takes is less money a business has to invest in expansion, less money to provide benefits to its employees, less money to provide pay raises. As Senator Fred Thompson explained in his speech to the Republican National Convention, Obama’s tax policy is like trying to take water out of only one side of a bucket:
“Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they’re not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses. So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don’t worry, it’s not going to affect you! They say they’re not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.”
My friends, when Obama says he wants to bring “change” to America, I believe him. But I don’t believe it is the change we need. Barack Obama is the most leftwing candidate to win a major party nomination in modern history. He is radically pro-abortion. He has fully embraced the radical agenda of the militant homosexual movement, which in California now includes taking public school first graders on field trips to lesbian “weddings.” And his economic views are seemingly inspired by Karl Marx.
Hyperbole? Not really. In recent days, information has surfaced that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois, which was started by political operatives from Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign. A November 1996 editorial in the leftwing Progressive Populist states, “New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.” (Obama ran as a Democrat, but sought support and endorsements from the leftwing fringe, like the New Party.) [Emphases mine]
An August 1996 article in New Ground, a publication of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, makes it clear that Obama was actively seeking the support of New Party radicals, who were joined at the hip with ACORN: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”
This is more evidence of why Obama’s past relationships with radicals like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are relevant to today’s campaign for the White House. These relationships are a window into Obama’s worldview. They tell us everything we need to know about who he is, what he believes and how he will govern.
I have a lot to say today, friends, so please bear with me. I’d like to begin by going back to a point in yesterday’s report, just in case you missed it, because it is a very significant point.
There is no question that our nation is grappling with a major economic crisis right now. As we have outlined in past reports, the roots of this crisis can be traced back to liberal policies enacted by Jimmy Carter, expanded by Bill Clinton, pushed by leftwing groups like ACORN and defended by liberal Democrats in Congress. The question before us in this election is: How do we respond to this crisis?
Will America embrace free market capitalism or will we abandon our traditions and take a radical lurch to the left with the socialist policies espoused by Barack Obama? Will this new economic crisis lead to a new revolution in America? That is the question we will face in 21 days.
In our report yesterday, we told you about a plumber who approached Barack Obama during a campaign event in Ohio over the weekend. As you know, Obama has repeatedly promised to raises taxes on successful entrepreneurs and families, and this plumber called him out on it. He asked Obama, “Do you believe in the American dream? I’m being taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream.”
Obama responded by saying, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Let me again quote the German philosopher and founder of the communist ideology, Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” In other words, you will produce what you can using your talents and then government will use its power to take your earnings and “spread” them to others who are unable or unwilling to do as well. “Spreading the wealth” may sound nice, but it has never worked. The “workers’ paradise” Marx dreamed of was tried in the Soviet Union with its mandated results and planned economies. The Soviet Union no longer exists.
But Obama wants to try it here. He constantly talks of tax policy in terms of “fairness” – whether or not it actually works. Consider this exchange with ABC’s Charlie Gibson during the April 16th Democrat primary debate on the subject of raising capital gains taxes:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton,” which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. …
OBAMA: Right.
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
So, whether or not the policy is sound doesn’t matter. What matters is Barack Obama’s sense of “fairness.” Government will decide what’s “fair,” government will decide how much of your hard-earned income you get to keep, government will determine what your “needs” are.
The Ohio plumber who questioned Obama’s tax plan ought to be running for public office. He’s got it exactly right -- Obama’s tax policies will punish success and they will punish working families. John McCain is hammering this theme on the campaign trial in Pennsylvania today.
Every dollar the government takes is less money a business has to invest in expansion, less money to provide benefits to its employees, less money to provide pay raises. As Senator Fred Thompson explained in his speech to the Republican National Convention, Obama’s tax policy is like trying to take water out of only one side of a bucket:
“Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they’re not going to tax your family. No, they’re just going to tax businesses. So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don’t worry, it’s not going to affect you! They say they’re not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! That’s their idea of tax reform.”
My friends, when Obama says he wants to bring “change” to America, I believe him. But I don’t believe it is the change we need. Barack Obama is the most leftwing candidate to win a major party nomination in modern history. He is radically pro-abortion. He has fully embraced the radical agenda of the militant homosexual movement, which in California now includes taking public school first graders on field trips to lesbian “weddings.” And his economic views are seemingly inspired by Karl Marx.
Hyperbole? Not really. In recent days, information has surfaced that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois, which was started by political operatives from Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign. A November 1996 editorial in the leftwing Progressive Populist states, “New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.” (Obama ran as a Democrat, but sought support and endorsements from the leftwing fringe, like the New Party.) [Emphases mine]
An August 1996 article in New Ground, a publication of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, makes it clear that Obama was actively seeking the support of New Party radicals, who were joined at the hip with ACORN: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”
This is more evidence of why Obama’s past relationships with radicals like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are relevant to today’s campaign for the White House. These relationships are a window into Obama’s worldview. They tell us everything we need to know about who he is, what he believes and how he will govern.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, October 14, 2008 
