Barack Obama and Greed

A vote for Barack Obama is NOT a vote for socialism. That’s what you’re really saying and it’s ridiculous. So is saying that Barack is a muslim (He’s not. His father, who shares the same name with him, was), that he’s the messiah or antichrist (As if changing your vote could prevent the tribulation and doom’s day), or that’s he’s a communist (Where did that come from?!). The Republicans even tried to paint John Kerry in 2004 as French! (I’m certainly no fan and actually voted for Bush in that election, but come on. This can’t be true and it turns out it wasn’t.)

When you hear Barack’s comments about sharing the wealth, don’t think “socialism” think “Robin Hood”! The greedy rich have abused their wealth to gain power and abused their power to increase their wealth at the expense of this nation and her people. This has gone on for the past 3 decades and especially the past 8 years. That’s why we have a financial crisis on our hands. That’s why the real estate market collapsed.

Barack is merely saying enough is enough and the buck stops here. He’s going to correct this oversight, plug the loop-holes, and (hopefully) give the greedy their due. He is not stealing people’s hard-earned money, he’s taking away ill-gotten gains. He’s for the lower classes and the middle classes instead of the rich and powerful. That makes him extremely dangerous to them and they have fought tooth and nail against him from day one. Barack is a real American and the real deal. John McCain is the puppet of the right having given up everything that he used to stand for (honor, dignity, service, honesty, and being a maverick reformer) in order to win this election. I actually like John McCain, or should I say, “liked” as in before he sold his soul to be President.

I don’t know about you, but I make under 40k a year. My wife makes a little less. And we’re hurting bad. We barely make enough to pay minimum payments on our bills. The recent spike in gas prices left us nothing extra for our newborn daughter. We’re even attending graduate school right now so that 1) my wife can keep her job (the degree is a job requirement), 2) we can make more money (as teachers we will each get an approximate 10% pay increase), and 3) our existing college loans will remain in forbearance until we finish our schooling. While some of our debt is our fault, some of it is not and we’re being penalized by our debtors for making and having less money – specifically credit cards and Bank of bleeding America. It’s simply not right to tax us more than people in a higher tax bracket who make more and can live on less. We have less to work with and can barely make ends meet. That’s unjust and even Warren Buffet says so.

Thus, there is a real problem right now in America that’s splitting the country into the “Haves” and the “Have-Nots”. It’s called greed and it’s a deadly sin by any standard, but it’s also an invisible sin. The executives at AIG who went on a spending spree after the American people bailed out their company should be held accountable. Even Alan Greenspan expressed shocked disbelief that banks, operating in their own self-interest, didn’t protect their shareholders and institutions.

I don’t know what your concerns, priorities, hopes, or dreams are, but I have lots of the former and very few of the latter right now. The American people desperately need change and that change will not likely come from John McCain or the Republicans. Actions speak louder than words and John McCain’s actions have not been for the lower or middle classes. In fact, Obama, in his few years as a senator, has accomplished just as much important legislation for the average American as McCain has in his longer stint as one. I just don’t think McCain will fix this country. He’s hot-head and quick on the trigger. I don’t like the thought of him holding the big red button that could trigger World War III when he’s a heartbeat away from eternity. Sarah Palin doesn’t inspire much confidence in me either, red dress or not.

Advertisements

15 responses to “Barack Obama and Greed

  1. Nice Post. Its not about over taxing anyone, just about fair tax for everyone and putting a stop (or at least trying to) to the super-wealthy that now control Washington. I always thought growing up that republicans were for smaller government, less spending, more freedoms, etc, so I voted republican while I was in the military. None of those things apply to the republican party of today, and it really seems obvious that the republican party of today has narrowed its vision to only helping the wealthy in the country. I’m not old enough to say whether republicans ever had the best interest of the country in their hearts, but I can only see voting democrat for the foreseeable future.

  2. I agree. I rather liked Huckabee so maybe he can wrestle control of the party back to where it ought to be. Either way, the Republican party will be a mess after this election. They will have no choice but to reorganize. It will be interesting to see what direction they take having watched the Democrats rise from the ashes of their own mess in the past few years.

    BTW, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican so I think your comment about the past is verified.

    Interestingly, I see similarities between Lincoln and Obama. Barack really does seem to embody the best of our past leaders – JFK, MLK, and even Honest Abe.

  3. To: Daniel Smith,

    While searching the net for wallpaper images, I came across your blog and stopped to read your post, “Barack Obama and Greed.” Intrigued by your comments, I spent a few days reviewing the entirety of your blog postings and then a few weeks pondering your dilemma. While your blog offers numerous points on which to initiate a discussion, I will start with what appears to be your crippling handicap; your hostility toward the rich. Is it the rich person’s fault your financial genius was never developed and you now find yourself in a state of poverty as you suffer from a lack of money?

    Salty

  4. Re: Salty

    Looking back, I can see how you interpret this post to be very anti-rich, but that was never the point. This article was intended to confront a lot of negative thinking and outright lies regarding Barack Obama’s run for president.

    It actually started out as a comment in reply to a blog posting on another site. The author of that site was openly and blatantly anti-Obama. And there’s nothing wrong with that. She is entitled to her opinion as am I.

    Anyway, she allowed comments on some of her blog postings so I commented. I thought it was a rather good discussion, but she didn’t see it that way. She went so far as to threaten to ban me for writing such “advertisements” for Barack on her site. So I left that site and haven’t been back. I saved my comment since she threatened to not post it and turned it into this blog post.

    Now that you know the origins of the post, let me respond to your comment:

    I’m not anti-rich, but I have been burned by people who have taken my money either by questionable means or what have you. Our society is chronically ill with get-rich-quick wolves out to scam anybody they can. And our legal system is currently setup so that a lot of unethical activities are perfectly legal. I don’t think that’s right and that’s essentially the message of that part of my post.

    This post was never intended to identify all rich people as scammers or wolves. There are honest people out there that just happen to also have a lot of money. There are, however, a high number of scammers and wolves too.

    To quote Eric in comment #1, it’s “about fair tax for everyone and putting a stop (or at least trying to) to the super-wealthy that now control Washington.” Getting wealthy and then abusing that wealth to unduly influence those in power, or gain power yourself, to put yourself in a position to gain even more wealth at the expense of a free opportunity for others is an unjust system.

    Case in point: Schools in my home state of North Carolina are REQUIRED by law to spend the money they are allotted by the state for the daily functioning of the school to purchase equipment and supplies through state-provided suppliers. The original intention of this system was to prevent schools from purchasing sub-standard equipment and supplies. This way the state could guarantee a level of quality across all schools. This can be abused, however, and here’s how. Just jack up the price and that’s what many of the suppliers have done. Plus, the suppliers on the official state list have to make it through a political process to make it on the list in the first place. Can you say bribery and corruption? It’s now so bad that schools can’t get a replacement commode from the local Wal-mart. No, they have to buy a special one that costs three-times as much from the list.

    Now, I’m being a little sarcastic, but I’m not too far off the mark. If you know the right people, you can guarantee an income this way at the expense of the students.

  5. To: Daniel Smith

    Part 1 of 5

    DS — “Looking back, I can see how you interpret this post to be very anti-rich, . . .”

    Any responsibility for an inaccurate interpretation of your words is yours alone. The general context of your post, void of any qualifiers, and your clearly articulated hope that Mr. Obama will visit vengeance upon the greedy rich were sufficient to leave any reader with a distinct impression your hostility is directed toward those who are rich.

    DS — “It actually started out as a comment in reply to a blog posting on another site.”

    This much I had already concluded because of the disconnected context of the first paragraph.

    DS — “I’m not anti-rich,…”

    I made no charge that you were. My statement was that you demonstrate hostility toward the rich. The distinction is crucial. No liberal, socialist, or Democrat in their right mind is anti-rich. Even they tacitly acknowledge that without the rich there would be no one from whom to confiscate the wealth needed to fund their socialistic agenda.

    DS — “I have been burned by people who have taken my money either by questionable means or what have you.”

    So have I; but I do not use it as an excuse to wage war against my fellow Citizens; be they rich or poor.

    A man sold me a $100,000 two-story house he built with a serious foundation flaw (no footer beneath a 14 inch deep trench foundation situated in loose expansive clay fill) as well as a deficient on-site waste water treatment system. Twelve years and $53,000 later I was able to sell the house after installing a new waste water treatment system ($7,000), fixing the foundation ($20,000), and repairing 18 years of deferred maintenance ($26,000). To complete the repairs necessary to restore the house to a marketable condition consumed 282 hours of my vacation time. If you were to consider the direct and opportunity costs associated with recovering from this man’s deceit, I am confident you would be able to appreciate the life-altering impact of this experience.

    But that experience pales in comparison to what my co-workers did when they unionized me against my will. Using the card check process (i.e. the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act method), both the union and my employer denied the employees their legal right to a secret ballot election. Refusing to acknowledge the havoc and turmoil they were creating in the lives of others, union members stood silent as their brutish thugs forced the termination of the employment of non-union member employees who refused to submit to the union’s demand they financially support the union.

    Because of my experience, as well as the experiences of others of whom I am aware, I can unequivocally state that I have never met anyone as greedy as a union member. While rarely monetarily rich, they certainly are not poor when it comes to political power. And unions aggressively use that political power to compel financial support from those whom they subjugate and then use that confiscated wealth to increase their political power. Labor unions do not demand monopoly control of labor because it is the right thing to do; they demand it because it is profitable and they are empowered by their allies in the halls of government to do so.

    You clearly conveyed your contempt for those who use monetary wealth to manipulate the political process so as to increase their monetary wealth. But your support of Mr. Obama reveals your willingness to overlook the actions of those who use political power, another form of wealth, to enrich themselves with monetary wealth they then use to increase their political power. Since the latter is a far more dangerous manifestation of the evil you find so contemptible, why are you only offended by the greed of those who are monetarily rich?

    Regardless of the loss you have suffered, it does not justify your support of those who manipulate and abuse our nation’s laws to assault the liberty and property of others just so your thirst for vengeance can be satisfied.

    DS — “This post was never intended to identify all rich people as scammers or wolves.”

    That is the effect of your post.

    Salty

  6. To: Daniel Smith

    Part 2 of 5

    DS — “To quote Eric in comment #1, it’s “about fair tax for everyone …” ”

    There are many infirm and cripple among us, who, but for the crutch given them, could walk of their own accord.

    What constitutes a fair tax?

    When does fair become quid pro quo or a bribe paid as a reward for political loyalty? How is it fair that the political party in power is permitted to withdraw from our national treasury the funds they use to repay individuals, organizations, and businesses for their political support? Likewise, is it fair for the political party in power to pass into law special statutes whereby their supporters gain favored status under the law? Is it fair that taxpayers are force to cover the cost of these reward payments or other special provisions? Are not all such things indicative of rampant abuse of power which cost is ultimately paid by the unprotected taxpayer? How then can our current system of tax collection and the policies controlling its use be characterized as fair for everyone?

    Mr. Obama used the phrase tax cut to describe monies soon to be given to those who have an effective income tax rate of zero or less. It would be more accurate to describe this tax cut as just another welfare payment. Only now, when an individual is said to be receiving a tax cut we have no way of ascertaining which type is being received. Misappropriating a word and using it in a deceptive context intended to disguise the truth of what is being said is just another form of lying.

    Our Congress, full of pompous self-glorifying socialistic ideologues, has implemented policies whereby the rich taxpayer is compelled to pay the tax obligation of the poor taxpayer who has been relieved of that obligation. How is this system of servitude fair to the one compelled to pay the taxes owed by another? Compelled benevolence is never fair; nor just.

    Fairness demands that each individual pays their own way through this life. That cost of life includes paying their rightful share of the legitimate cost of the government they benefit from. But I doubt Mr. Obama will insist on any positive change in this arena for that is not the kind of change he supports. Our national policies not only relieve certain individuals of their tax obligations and thereby permit them to ride for free; they empower them to become paid riders.

    Democrats deem the existence of free riders in the unionized work place so offensive laws were passed to subjugate those so-called free riders to the taxation authority of the labor union. Yet Democrats have no difficulty empowering an individual loyal to the political and ideological agendas of the Democrat Party to freely ride through this life while compelling others to pay the free rider’s expenses. If it is to be the policy of our national government to be intolerant of free riders in the work place then it should likewise be intolerant of free riders in our society as a whole. This is the very essence of bribery and corruption and is the Grand Hypocrisy of the Democrat Party.

    Salty

  7. To: Daniel Smith

    Part 3 of 5

    DS — “…and putting a stop (or at least trying to) to the super-wealthy that now control Washington.”

    When Mr. Obama attacks and maligns the character of the rich, is he including himself among those he defines as rich or is he speaking of a group of people distinct and different from the group with which he identifies?

    I suppose it is possible for Mr. Obama to reject the control of those who provided for his ascendancy to the presidential seat of power and become the Champion of the lower and middle classes. While you may believe he is capable of demanding the surrender of those who have bought their right to control Washington, I find no empirical evidence upon which you should rest such a naïve hope.

    It is utter foolishness to believe that putting a fox in charge of the henhouse will stop the foxes from raiding the coop. The problem is not the super-wealthy who control Washington; it is everyday Americans who are so apathetic toward matters of government that they do not even know which party controls the federal congress. And yet, we allow such ignoramuses to vote. Any people willing to tolerate such a degree of political ignorance as well as the payment of bribes in exchange for political loyalty will ultimately find themselves raising their children as slaves in the very land they call home.

    The super-wealthy (the top 1 percent of taxpayers), by their willingness to carry the greater share (40 percent of tax revenues collected) of funding the cost of government have purchased the right to control that government. But do the next 24 percent of taxpayers who likewise pay 40 percent of the cost of government enjoy the same power of control? The same can be asked of the next 25 percent who fund only 17 percent of the cost of government. And what of the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers who pay only 3 percent of the taxes collected? How irrational is their expectation that, while they contribute next to nothing to the support of government, they should share equally in the process by which it is controlled?

    While the legal right of such people to have a voice in government is debatable, their lack of an ethical or moral right is beyond dispute; they have no such rights. Having sold their political loyalty for the price of a bribe whereby their rightful obligation to fund the cost of their government is shifted to another, these individuals have abdicated their responsibilities of citizenship and forfeited any claim they may have possessed. They are essentially self-disenfranchised wards of the state.

    Salty

  8. To: Daniel Smith

    Part 4 of 5

    DS — “He’s going to correct this oversight, plug the loop-holes, and (hopefully) give the greedy their due. He is not stealing people’s hard-earned money, he’s taking away ill-gotten gains. He’s for the lower classes and the middle classes instead of the rich and powerful. That makes him extremely dangerous to them and they have fought tooth and nail against him from day one.”

    The governance of a people is a serious matter with grave consequences if done improperly. Why then do you choose to be so flippant, perhaps even naïve, about so serious an issue?

    Please explain how the gains realized by me because I chose to apply to my life a fundamental law of money qualifies as ill-gotten gains worthy of confiscation by my government. I am also interested in knowing the source of your authority whereby you authorize our government to take that which is not yours to give away.

    The power to tax is a specified power granted to Congress. Following the grant of power to lay and collect taxes, our Founding Fathers listed those purposes for which our federal congress could lawfully do so. By these specified purposes, the unrestrained power to tax was restricted while enabling our federal government to fulfill its obligation to provide for the nation’s common defense and general welfare. But any tax levied by Congress for a purpose not authorized by our constitution constitutes an unconstitutional, and thus illegal, tax.

    But I perceive from your comments that you believe our federal congress is empowered with a broader, less restricted, power to transfer wealth from one person to another. On this matter we disagree and I therefore lay this challenge before you: Quote the constitutional clause or clauses whereby we the people granted to our federal congress the power to use its taxation authority to transfer the wealth of one individual to yet another. Then, having succeeded at that, show the constitutional requirement for that transfer of wealth to be from the wealthy to the poor. Having met this challenge, you will enable your fellow Americans to determine whether or not the members of their federal congress are operating within its authorities and powers as vested to them by our national constitution.

    Unfortunately, by the vote of millions of Americans, Mr. Obama, with his declared intent to spread the wealth around, has been empowered to commit a crime against the constitution and the people to whom it belongs. It is not relevant that the majority have spoken their will on this matter unless you also believe the will of the people supersedes the Supreme Law established by our national constitution. That law declares that private property shall not be taken by any means other than taxation without just compensation. That amendment exists for the protection of the people, rich and poor alike, against unfettered taxation and takings by government. While the amendment protects the wealth of the rich, its greatest effect is enjoyed by the poor who have the most to lose when what little they have is taken and who, because of their lowly means, have the harder time recovering. What you seem to ignore is those who empower their government to take from the rich condemn themselves to a far harder, if not impossible, struggle should they decide to escape their current state of poverty.

    In our arrogant ignorance as a greedy and self-centered people, we have successfully empowered our government to do that which our Founding Fathers strove so hard to prevent. It would do you good to remembered that the constitution, if it indeed does empower our government to take from one and give to another is silent regarding how that power might be applied. If it has the power to take from the rich and give to the poor, then it has an equal power to take from the poor and give to the rich. While you may disagree with me on this matter that has been the precise effect of TARP whereby our government made us responsible for paying the debt created when it gave billions to the wealthy.

    Please tell me again, this time with a straight face, how our Founding Fathers, who risked all they had in a war with their king, the superpower of their day, were so foolish as to grant to the government they had just created the unrestricted power to transfer wealth from one individual to another.

    Having personally heard Mr. Obama state his approval of $4 per gallon gasoline, I am curious how you rationalize your belief that he is for the lower and middle classes. The personal economies of these classes are heavily stressed by excessive debt and built upon cash rather than inflation resistant assets capable of providing inflation resistant cash flows. Furthermore, their incomes tend to lag behind the rise in prices and the loss of wealth created by this lag is rarely recovered. As our recent experience with the price of gasoline demonstrates, their personal economies lack the reserve capacity necessary to enable them to absorb rapid increases in the prices of the commodities necessary to their existence. In periods of high inflation, these personal economies are in serious danger of collapse. Yet Mr. Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress favor fiscal policies which will not only increase the level of our national debt but which are also highly inflationary. Once enacted into law, these inflationary and confiscatory fiscal policies will only add to the disastrous actions taken by President Bush during the closing days of his administration. Since the rich and super-wealthy are better positioned to ride through, or even prosper from, a harsh inflationary economy, I do not believe you can truthfully claim Mr. Obama is for the lower and middle classes. Nor do I agree with your sentiment regarding Mr. Buffet. It would do you good to contemplate why wealthy individuals such as Mr. Buffet would support the fiscal policies of Mr. Obama and a Democrat congress when they know how destructive such policies are to our personal, as well as our national, economies.

    Salty

  9. To: Daniel Smith

    Part 5 of 5

    DS — “Getting wealthy and then abusing that wealth to unduly influence those in power, or gain power yourself, to put yourself in a position to gain even more wealth at the expense of a free opportunity for others is an unjust system.”

    Since this is the modus operandi of labor unions, which are little more than a fund raising arm of the Democrat Party, I am baffled by your vote for the Democrat ticket.

    DS — “Case in point: Schools in my home state of North Carolina are REQUIRED by law to spend the money they are allotted by the state for the daily functioning of the school to purchase equipment and supplies through state-provided suppliers. [ . . . ] Can you say bribery and corruption?”

    Can you say “pay to play” or “quid pro quo”? Regardless of the words used, the concept is easy to understand: Anytime government has the power to control both supply and demand tyranny exists and where tyranny exists the people always suffer while the friends of tyranny prosper.

    DS — “It’s now so bad that schools can’t get a replacement commode from the local Wal-mart. No, they have to buy a special one that costs three-times as much from the list.”

    Might it possibly be a toilet cannot be purchased at Wal-mart because labor unions, the bedmates of the Democrats, are engaged in a war with Wal-mart? What causes you to believe it will be any different after the Democrats saddle this nation with a national health care system which empowers government to control both the supply and demand sides of the health care economy? What leverage do those in government gain by such control? And once such a system becomes entrenched into our economy, as is the case with social security and other social insurance programs, how will it ever be removed?

    I am baffled by your support of a candidate whose political party funds the payment of its loyalty bribes with wealth stolen through the misappropriation of funds from our national treasury as well as taxation of the wages of workers subjugated by their union proxies. If you are so offended by and opposed to bribery and corruption in our system of governance, why do you support those who support and advocate for policies and practices which only increases the hazards of such evils? Why do you support those who take a position diametric to the one you claim to favor?

    I do not know if you understand what it means to be a socialist. The essence of socialism is societal ownership of the means of production. Since ultimately human beings are the only true “means of production,” it is nothing more than a fancy way of saying we own us. What is not disclosed is the small but crucial fact that humans are incapable of sustaining a society without some form of government. It is through the apparatus of government that we find a way to live together peacefully and thereby avoid the necessity of annihilating each other. This inescapable component of human life creates the situation in which control of people can be gained by controlling the government under which the people live. Thus, it is not the people who own and control the means of production; it is those who control government. This is tyranny; the antithesis of freedom and liberty. Thus, personal freedom or liberty does not exist under socialism. Yet this is what millions of risk adverse Americans voted for. What the election of 2008 reveals is the incomprehensible desire of Americans to lay aside the protection of their constitution in exchange for the shackles of slavery rather than hazard the risks and rewards of liberty. While I have been expecting the vote of 2008 for a number of decades, I still find it most disconcerting.

    Salty

  10. Re: Salty

    First, thanks for visiting my blog and reading my posts. I appreciate that. And now my response:

    “Any responsibility for an inaccurate interpretation of your words is yours alone.”

    What? No, the burden of interpretation is clearly on the reader. Period. Interpretation is a subjective act, not an objective one. While English is not as precise a language as, say, French, it nevertheless allows for the formation of complex sentences encapsulating complex thoughts. These written thoughts enter the mind of the reader where the individual words and collective phrases of the whole are converted into their associated denotations and connotations to form a clearly subjective holistic interpretation of their meaning.

    That said, I feel for you and your losses in your housing deceit situation but I detect a sense that you consider this the norm. I think this is an abomination and should be stopped. It is unlikely that it will, however, until the laws are changed. I really do believe Obama is going to do this. In watching the commentary of his first full day in office I am quite pleased to hear the restrictions he is placing on his own staff and the transparency his in placing into his administration. It is truly amazing to watch.

    Regarding your union problem I also sympathize. I rather think unions tend to make a bad situation worse. I don’t think I support them but know that there are no unions in my state or they are few. Essentially, the doctrine of absolute power corrupts absolutely seems to be in play both in business ownership and administration as well as union administration. I would not have liked to have been in the situation your were in. The firing and silencing of people with opposing views is a terrible practice.

    I guess the bottom line for us both is that we are (strangely) in agreement! And we’re both angry, but we should not be angry at each other. Let that be directed toward the appropriate people otherwise we exert our energy inefficiently and cause more problems as well.

    Regarding a fair tax system, I don’t confess to know what a fair tax system is or looks like. I just know that the current system does not work out well for me. Of course you’ll probably hear that same complaint for everyone no matter what system is adopted. I don’t think this has gone unnoticed by Obama. We will see what he will do to reform the system.

    You know, you sound anti-government in #2 a lot. You should really work on that anger issue (of course I’m one to talk given my post above.) I really do feel a lot better today having seen what Obama’s first actions have been. It is impressive. And it was based on hope that I made this post. No, I didn’t have any empirical evidence suggesting he would actually come through and be the champion of the middle and lower classes yet he certainly seems to be doing just that. But neither did you have any reason to assume he would not since he was not in power yet.

    While I also feel for your concerns about how the taxes are payed in our system with the top 1% paying 40% of the taxes etc., I am reminded of a parable of Jesus. A land-owner sought workers for his field. He found some to come and work in the morning, some more in the afternoon, and a few late in the evening. When the day was done the land-owner paid each one the SAME wage and when those that had worked a full day complained the land-owner basically said he could do what he wanted and show mercy on whom he pleased. So, since you are not in a position of power why do you complain? And this parable should be instructive to me too.

    In summary, you come across as very knowledgable in matters of wealth management particularly as applied to the US government. I am not so well versed but even I can see through the lies spread by the McCain campaign. Barack is not going to spread the wealth around as McCain interpreted it and you have repeated in my blog. He’s not a socialist either and there are plenty of other misunderstandings running rampant. So I don’t feel the need to try to point out such parts of the constitution since I know they’re not there and I don’t think that’s Obama’s agenda or at least not how he plans to accomplish it if it in some way is.

    I am also equally at a loss to understand how you equate labor unions to a fundraiser.

    Oh, and don’t talk to me about democrats stealing from the treasury when we have watched Henry Paulson of the treasury dole out billions to banks and when asked who got the money, how much, and what it was used for he claims that such knowledge might be damaging to the companies involved? You’ve got to be kidding! If company A used it to pad the year-end bonus of their executives OF COURSE it would damage that company’s credibility and that’s exactly why it should come out. The taxpayers have a right to know. You certainly can’t say that the Republican party is the party of fiscal conservatives anymore either. It’s a fact that our country is in terrible economic straits right now and it has been a solidly republican-led government and congress for 6 of the last 8 years. The root causes of these disasters clearly come from the earlier part of the Bush presidency when the Republicans were clearly in charge yet you complain about supporting the Democrats? That’s quite unbelievable.

    And since you end of Socialism – McCain’s big gun – I have some information for you. Sarah Palin according to your definition of socialism in the final paragraph is a socialist or at least the governor of a socialist state in which state-run oil dividends are sent out to each of the state’s citizens. Now, call me crazy, but wasn’t she McCain’s pick for Republican Vice Presidental Nominee? That burns as it should.

    So, in conclusion, all I can say is watch Obama. As of 1/21/09 he’s doing some amazing things. I think he really is going to do all those things he promised in spite of the state of the nation as Bush left it.

  11. To: Daniel Smith,

    There are two issues we need to resolve before continuing with our conversation on the other issues raised in your blog.

    DS – October 29, 2008
    A vote for Barack Obama is NOT a vote for socialism. That’s what you’re really saying and it’s ridiculous.

    When you hear Barack’s comments about sharing the wealth, don’t think “socialism” think “Robin Hood”!

    DS – January 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm
    Barack is not going to spread the wealth around as McCain interpreted it and you have repeated in my blog. He’s not a socialist either. . ..

    Salty – January 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm , Part 4 of 5
    Unfortunately, by the vote of millions of Americans, Mr. Obama, with his declared intent to spread the wealth around, has been empowered to commit a crime against the constitution and the people to whom it belongs.

    Issue One: “He’s not a socialist either. . .”

    Then what is he? What descriptive word most accurately describes his socio-economic belief system? He certainly is not a capitalist nor have I seen or heard any clear indicators of his being a fascist. That pretty much leaves socialist as the most accurate word. Since you continually object to the use of socialist, it is incumbent upon you to clear up the confusion and bring clarity to the issue. If others are wrong for identifying him as a socialist, then tell us why we are wrong.

    Issue Two: “. . . as McCain interpreted it and you have repeated. . .”

    Your assertion that I repeated Senator McCain’s interpretation is incorrect as well as baseless. I searched the entirety of my postings and can find only one location where I stated that it was Senator Obama’s intent to spread the wealth. In that section, quoted above, I applied the interpretation I deduced from the words I heard spoken by Senator Obama himself. This is not a “repeating” of Senator McCain’s interpretation. Contrary to your “interpretation” of the sequence of events, I had deduced the meaning of Senator Obama’s words long before Senator McCain made them a campaign stumping point. Unless you can prove otherwise, it is inappropriate for you to charge that I am doing nothing more than mindlessly parroting the words of Senator McCain.

    To the extent my interpretation may be invalid a discussion can and should ensue.

    Salty

  12. Re: Salty

    Well, my first thought is that you have far too much time on your hands. I appreciate the attention to detail – I really do – but I think you have clouded your arguments simply by having too many of them.

    That said, in response, it is a historical fact that most of the socialist aspects of our government were either started or enlarged under Reagan. And, by and large, I think they were good things and successful. So my real question to you is why you think Socialism is such a terrible and bad word. Like Liberal or Terrorist.

    And I reiterate that Sarah Palin has the most socialist credentials of any personality in recent political memory. She’s certainly probably the most well-known of all the politicians in the recent election that has socialism in her resume.

    But you didn’t respond to that.

  13. To: Daniel Smith

    DS – January 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm: “Well, my first thought is that you have far too much time on your hands. I appreciate the attention to detail – I really do – but I think you have clouded your arguments simply by having too many of them.”

    Regarding time: Why should I spend time pursuing a wage when such income is taxed at an effective rate of 50 percent? Do you enjoy working for half pay? If I can pay my allotted tax liability in half the time as another, who can rightly object if I quit working at noon on Wednesday and enjoy the remainder of my week?

    Regarding hands: Why should I use my hands to create in the streams of commerce a means of production from which people can draw their daily sustenance when those people, who know not what they are doing, empower their government to control my creation and confiscate the wealth it produces? Have not those people spoken that it is the duty of government to punish the evil and greedy rich for their excessive wealth? Why then should I set my hands to the creation of that which will only make me wealthier?

    Regarding details: Being mostly correct has the power to produce the same disastrous result as being totally wrong.

    If you believe I have clouded my arguments perhaps it is because you have not yet developed an understanding of the foundation upon which they are based.

    DS – January 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm: “That said, in response, it is a historical fact that most of the socialist aspects of our government were either started or enlarged under Reagan.”

    A nice generality but where are those historical facts of which you speak? Where is your proof they were implemented or enlarged by President Reagan? I am not saying you are wrong; only that you have once again failed to substantiate your claim.

    DS – January 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm: “And, by and large, I think they were good things and successful.”

    By what standard do you measure the success of socialism? Do you simply evaluate its theory or do you seek actual performance data? Do you selectively choose what data to evaluate?

    Did President Reagan promote government as the solution for the problems in the economy or did he proclaim that government was the problem? Did President Reagan utilize free capital market or socialistic concepts to fix that disaster known as the Carter Economy?

    How can that which is evil be good? How can something which destroys that upon which it depends succeed?

    DS – January 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm: “So my real question to you is why you think Socialism is such a terrible and bad word. Like Liberal or Terrorist.”

    I do not think socialism is a terrible or bad word. As a word, it is neither good nor bad. But socialism is not a natural law. To maintain its existence requires the same type of external force as slavery. Thus, as a socio-economic system, socialism is not simply bad, it is evil, because socialism:

    1 – Violates the law established by the God you claim to serve.
    2 – Violates the law established by our Constitution.
    3 – Enslaves people by denying them the liberty essential to their prosperity while reducing them to the equivalent of a domesticated animal.

    It is foolish to create wealth in an environment lacking that which is essential for its existence. As foolish as tree-hugging environmentalists may be, even they understand this principle. Socialism is not, nor has it ever been, about social, economic, or any other type of justice. Socialism is about control. To gain that control, people must be brought into a state of submissive dependency. Socialism is the vehicle designed to achieve that objective.

    DS – January 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm: “And I reiterate that Sarah Palin has the most socialist credentials of any personality in recent political memory. She’s certainly probably the most well-known of all the politicians in the recent election that has socialism in her resume.”

    DS – January 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm: “And since you end of Socialism – McCain’s big gun – I have some information for you. Sarah Palin according to your definition of socialism in the final paragraph is a socialist or at least the governor of a socialist state in which state-run oil dividends are sent out to each of the state’s citizens. Now, call me crazy, but wasn’t she McCain’s pick for Republican Vice Presidental Nominee? That burns as it should.”

    I find Senator McCain and his leftist political tendencies just as offensive as Senator Obama and Senator Clinton. Gov Palin’s silence regarding Alaska’s policy of compulsory unionism and her husband’s leadership in his union renders her just as unfit for political office as the other three. I am just a bit amused by your belief that by attacking Gov Palin you would cause me to defend her.

    DS – January 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm: “But you didn’t respond to that.”

    No response was needed to achieve my goal of determining why you object to President Obama being called what he appears to be. Nor would doing so enable me to dispel the notion I was merely parroting Senator McCain’s interpretation of Senator Obama’s desire to spread the wealth.

    It would be helpful if you would speak with more specificity. You object to President Obama being called a socialist but claim Gov Palin and Alaska meet my definition of socialism. But you do not substantiate either claim. Your aversion for details may be why the owner of the blog to which you first posted the original post in this blog accused you of advertising. If your claims are factual, it seems reasonable to expect you to point with more specificity than you have to those elements of socialism in her resume while doing likewise to the resumes of those, including President Obama, to whom you compare her.

    To the extent Gov Palin and the State of Alaska contribute to the discussion regarding socialism in our society they are viable points of discussion. Obviously you place a higher level of importance upon her and Alaska than I. Hopefully my response resolves that issue but I do not see how my response helps me gain an understanding as to why you object to identifying President Obama as a socialist. He is what he is and denying that reality serves no useful purpose. If President Obama is not a socialist what other word best describes his socio-economic belief system?

    Salty

  14. To: Daniel Smith

    Human is not a recognized socio-economic system.

    I understand President Obama is a human. I also understand he is a human who believes in taking from the rich and giving to the super and ultra rich. It remains to be determined exactly who he defines as being rich.

    Why another redirect? What does Mr. Hannity or Mr. Limbaugh have to do with your declaration that President Obama is not a socialist?

    Salty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s