This was a question posted on a Sean Hannity forum. See the original question here: http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=860031&page=24 And my original reply post here: http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35599411&postcount=110
Here's my answer:
A Real Answer to a valid question from a 21 yr old.
Okay, here's a real answer from a 42 yr old white woman who absolutely believes in helping the poor, feeding the sick, and empowering the down-trodden -
1. Rich old white guys aren't inherently any better or worse than rich (or poor) young black (or white) guys (or women).
2. What makes a leader's views better or worse than another leader's views is the METHOD by which he/she wants to accomplish his/her goals - because usually, the goals of all of the candidates are the same - help Americans enjoy freedom, safety and prosperity.
3. Obama's proposed policies are essentially communist-central-government policies - but he just doesn't use the "scary" language that you were taught in school. Because, in school, you probably did not read Marx, but just learned about how the Marxist ideas translated into the Russian revolution, or how they were used/abused by Hitler. So, no, our students in grade school, high school and college really don't learn enough about communism to be able to recognize it behind the fluffy language of "universal voluntary _____."
4. So, what 21 year olds have learned in school about communism is that it's bad, and it looks like Tianamen Square, or China - where everyone "worships" the government, where there's constant fear of government informants and middle of the night arrests by the KGB (former USSR secret military policy - speech Nazis), and where there is no freedom of religion.
5. But, what gets left out of that education is that all of that is really just the consequences of a central-government-controlled society and economy. The "re-education" of communist citizens, the lack of freedom of speech, the lack of religion, the military oppression of the people, that's all just the fall-out of having a government that has its hands in everything. The government needs all that other stuff to make sure that the people don't start looking or doing anything outside the government that would jeopardize its central power.
6. After last night's "9/11 Service Forum" at Columbia University, I was just reading Obama's statements on his Service and Education Issues pages on his website. The communist ideas are plastered all over those pages.
7. But first, before we get to the communist ideas, let's deal with money a little bit. And here, let's deal with your initial (implied) disparagement of "the rich." Be aware that what you call "rich" and what Obama will define as "rich" under the tax code are surely 2 different things. I'm sure you're thinking Bill Gates. When Obama says rich, he probably means (if you look @ the numbers, tax bills, etc. that he talks about) people earning more than $60,000.00 per year. I can tell you that in the Northeast, $60G means about $45G after tax. On a $1500 mortgage, 2 car family w/car loans, utilities, food, clothes, insurances, gasoline, etc., a family of 3 or 4 needs about $6G after-tax to live - or about $72G after-tax per year. And, no, you're not going to Disney for family vacations on that money. So, a NE family of 3 or 4 is not making it in reality - but in Obama tax bills, they are considered "rich."
If you want to learn more about being rich (indepently wealthy where your passive income exceeds your monthly expenses) (which I hope you do - because having a big heart and a big bank account are NOT mutually exclusive), read "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" & play the Cash Flow 101 game.
8. Staying on the money theme, review Obama's issue pages, and take note of all of the places where it says that "Obama will create ..." Everytime it says that, what it really means is that the US Government will use THE CITIZEN'S TAX MONEY for this thing or that thing. Now, go down the list and check off every feel-good thing that you like that he's going to create and that we do not currently have. How many check marks do you have? Now, multiply that by 3 billion dollars. Why? Because none of those programs can really be adequately funded by less than that. Now, how many times have you heard Obama complain about the deficit? Well, his policies will increase the deficit by the billions (or trillions) of dollars that you just calculated.
9. Now, spending money is sometimes good - if it's an investment. But, beware of "investment in our future ____" really meaning "paying money to citizens which will just enforce their entitlement mentality." It's the hand-up versus hand-out distinction.
10. And, while on taxes, remember that 40% of Americans don't currently pay taxes. I would be surprised if anyone making $40,000 or below pays any federal income tax. In fact, in reviewing some tax returns of some of my clients (I'm an attorney), I have been noticing that more and more, people are not only NOT paying any taxes, but they are getting money FREE from the government - in the form of "Earned Income Credit."
Okay, so here's what you've just learned. Those middle-income workers that you keep hearing Obama say he wants to protect from taxes - they don't pay any taxes. Yes, federal income tax is taken out of their paychecks (because the individual person has chosen to have that done), and then, they get 100% of that money back from the US govt in April when they file their returns. AND, in addition, the US govt ALSO sends them back EVEN MORE MONEY. It's called "Earned Income Credit" (EIC) and it's the 21st century version of welfare.
Now, that leaves 60% of the rest of us - the $60G and up. Just so you know, I paid about 5% in federal taxes last year - without any corporate or other loopholes of any kind - just your basic filing (and I made a little more than $60G but less than Gates - and that's a DARN low tax rate! If you want to check this out, check out the tax rates under the Carter years (1977 - 1980).
And, if you were good at math in school, you've probably also figured out that 5% of Americans pay 95% of our government's total income tax revenue (well, those aren't exactly the figures, but it's the general idea). So, when we're talking about "bigger" tax cuts for the "rich," what we're really saying is just logical mathematical formulas. Cutting the government's personal income tax revenues means telling people they can pay less, and if most of the revenues are coming from a few people, then it's those few people who are going to pay less. The 40% of Americans who don't pay taxes - and who are already getting free money from the US govt called an EIC - CAN'T pay any LESS because they already pay 0.
11. When you get a really big government and put its fingers in the middle of everything - in the name of helping out all the distressed people - and you take more and more money from the people - and you add bureacracy - and you take control away from the people and place the control into the big central government, now you've got a communist thing going on.
12. And here's what it would sound like in 21st c America -
Enable All Americans to Serve
Integrate Service into Learning
Invest in the Nonprofit Sector
(from Obama's website)
- ENABLE ALL AMERICANS TO SERVE - Americans don't need to be enabled to serve. There are TONS of service opportunities around you. Set up coffee and donuts at your place of worship. Clean the bathrooms at a homeless shelter. Sell stuff on eBay and donate to your favorite charity. Start your own homeless shelter (I personally know someone who did this completely without the govt's help). Volunteer with LVA and teach ESL or reading. The opportunities are endless - AND AMERICANS are very empowered already - to serve/volunteer - as evidenced by the fact that we now have the highest volunteer rate in history. . . . So, then, what does this bullet point (and the details which Obama recites below it) really mean? Because, it appears to address a "problem/issue" that is really a myth (as I just discussed). Okay, here's what it really means: I, Obama, want to create a large-central-beaurocratic-governement through which all volunteers/servers must go through. Also, if the beauracratic agency overseeing "volunteerism" deems that all citizens don't have an "equal" opportunity to volunteer, then the govt will compensate (pay) them to "volunteer," and the way that the govt will do that is to take the tax revenue from the 60% that are paying taxes and volunteering, and reimburse those who "can't afford" to volunteer for their "lost wages."
See how many things that communist plan just accomplished?
1. It changed the place of the FREEDOM OF CHOICE from you, the individual, to the central governement. Do this, and the American Volunteerism Spirit will immediately disappear.
2. It made the Government the FILTER.
3. It made the Governement in control of definitions.
4. It made the Governement in control of whether people feel empowered or not.
There's not room here to analyze the rest. But you can do it.
13. Hopefully, this helps you see the real meaning behind the words; helps you see the distinctions and purposes of a big v. small govt.
14. FWIW, I believe Obama is a good man who would be shocked to see the horrible real-life results 20 years from now of his well-intended plans.
And remember, even though he says (a lot) that America is great because of its history of self-reliance and personal responsibility, his policies are not in alignment with those principals.
All the Best to you.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
My thoughts to a friend who's voting for Obama b/c he's afraid the Iraq War will continue forever & doesn't believe that Obama's ideology is socialist
Here's my email that I sent back to my close, loved, and very very respected and hard-working friend. If you have a friend like this, pass it on. It might at least cause them to stop and think for a minute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YES, we could really turn into a socialist (1st step) and then a communist (2nd step) country. It can be done - it IS being done. Socialism has taken over Canada and England - and they don't have their freedoms of speech that they used to, and their health care rots, etc. I have done lots of research about communism (Marx, Gramsci), and the communist-founder of American "Community Organizing," (Saul Alinsky) etc., and it's scary how our society has fallen into the game plan of the 1919 stated, documented objectives of the Communist Party. [Attached is a document w/some of the research, with a list of many sources at the end.]
I don't care about what the rest of the world thinks of us. And I don't think America should either. That's a very co-dependent attitude (i.e. I should change my behavior and try to appease those others who don't like me because they don't like me - RATHER THAN, I should change my behavior because I've done some soul searching and my behavior rots. Peer pressure v. personal growth). The rest of the world hates us (and always will) as long as it's convenient for them (and serves their purposes - eg USA foots the bill for oh so many of their needs/objectives, etc) to do so - and as long as lots of Americans, and the American media promote the image that the rest of the world is justified in hating us - which has been the mantra of Americans & the media for a while now. They will stop hating us when we come to their defense. Others may be jealous and point the finger and blame us for all their woes, while we continue to be a leader in every positive movement in the world, but they will really be in great despair if we become weak b/c then they will feel the void (and the vulnerability) that a dictatorship could easily come in and fill. What would have happened in WWII if we hadn't been POSITIVE (about our good will and our good intentions and our good actions) about the USA, and been strong (mentally and financially and armed-forces) or gotten strong? If we had convinced ourselves that we were to blame for it all, we would have been weak & Hitler would have won. It was the BELIEF in ourselves that motivated the charge on DDAY to be a SUCCESSFUL one.
If your dream is for others to view USA as a Great Nation, then I would suggest that we start w/ourselves, each individual, viewing USA as a Great Nation. Not perfect, but Great. And we've been Great for a very long time - and we still are. We have led the world in EVERY ASPECT of society - for the last 200+ years - environment (US was 1st in the world to have EPA standards about anything, everyone else followed), child labor laws, civil rights, individual freedoms, industry standards, improvement of protection of innocent lives/collateral damage in war, war relief to displaced persons, criminal prisoner/pow rights, free enterprise, fair trade, manufacturing, innovation, etc.
What you say is the "scariest" scenario (i.e. that McCain doesn't have an "exit" strategy), I believe is really trying to evaluate current & future probs by looking in a rear-view mirror. That might have been the issue that led to the Vietnam failure (or there might have been other bigger contributing causes to the failure there, such as the lack of belief/support by Americans), but it's not the issue today.
Without an Iraq victory (and btw, I considered it a victory, by the definition of war, when we captured the country's ruler, the rest is post-war management, which the US has been doing since WWI, in better and better ways), there will be no stability in that region - which is the region of the world where the Islamic extremism starts. Even if you take out Al Quada in Afghanistan (so, yes, Obama will still be waging one or more wars - Afghanistan plus whatever else happens), Iraq (w/o a strong domestic govt/police/army) will be subject to radical control - and thus, Islamic terrorist control. There's a reason why Iraq is key.
You were young when the Iran hostage situation happened. Hundreds of our citizens were hostages for about a year in Iran (they had been @ our embassy there) b/c radical Iranians didn't like the US & took over our embassy there. (And let me just say, if they didn't like the US under Carter, they AIN'T NEVER gonna like us.) It took someone strong (Reagan) to win the 1980 election & to say, we aren't negotiating & we aren't messing around, for them to get released.
Then 10 years later, Iraq invades Kuwait & gets slapped with UN sanction after sanction after sanction, and still the world sits by watching an evil dictator accumulate terror and power. (a la 1930s - w/the then-Brittish Prime Minister Chamberlain supposedly successfully negotiating w/Hitler and promising the world "We will have peace in our time" - just so that Hitler could laugh & spit in their face and do whatever the heck he wanted to do - thank God that Churchill (new Brit PM) came along & said "never never never never give up" and FDR came along and said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.")
Then, the 3 or 4 attacks on US soil/army/embassies happened in the 1990s under Clinton - who didn't respond authoritatively - or whose response was a failure - eg Black Hawk Down.
We get attacked on 9/11 & we say we're doing it right this time, and we are told it will take time - and a lot more time than we, the-instant-disposable-30second attention span-Americans are used to. And we say, right on! go get em! And then a few yrs later, after we've successfully and swiftly dethroned the evil dictator, we say, hey this installing stability in the most terrorist-filled region in the world has a price tag that we don't like, let's just buy ourselves some (temporary) comfort by doing something else somewhere else.
The US could've taken that route in June 1944. The Normandy beaches are too hard. There'll be more American boys who die on that one day than all the American soldiers who will die in a 7 year long battle w/Iraq in 2001-2008. Let's not do it - let's do something else, like help the Russians, or invade Italy, or help defend England, b/c really, England's most like us. We, and the whole world, would have lost to Hitler, if we didn't face the problem head on.
And, there was no "end date" - and there NEVER was an end-date promised to the post-WWII clean-up/stabilization. The "clean-up" in WWII was just different - it was the Cold War - and it lasted almost 50 years - until the Berlin Wall came down (under Reagan - who revved up our military, after another appeaser - Carter - tried to dismantle it). The other way it was different? The winners divided up Germany & the other countries & then the USA (again, out of the goodness of our heart - yes, us "meanies") rebuilt Western Germany, et al. So, our adversaries weren't blowing up the new W German armies/police/infrastructure, b/c they were busy rebuilding their piece of the spoils. So, yeah, it's different this time.
I don't want our kids to get drafted anymore than those Moms & Dads in 1942 wanted their kids to sign up for war. But, aren't you glad that both those families and those young people made that sacrifice? In 1942, no one knew about the concentration camps. It was just a matter of, is this guy really after the USA or just a few small countries in Europe that don't even speak English? and if the latter, why should we go?
I don't agree w/China "gobbling up relationships" - no dictator has relationships. And when you are a very strong country like the USA, you don't need to worry about weak countries socializing w/the wrong crowd affecting you - until they wake up and find that the wrong crowd is, once again, taking advantage of them and they're dialing 911 to the USA for help. But, France being an ally of China and an ally of the USA simultaneously is what France does - it's weak. That's just its political nature. The people are La Resistance! But the govt is weak. We'll always be saving their butts from the bullies that they foolishly trusted.
I know this is probably more than you wanted to consider, but I thought you might want to know.
Also, as to the domestic issue of wealth redistribution, you DO know that it's already happening right? Under the EIC, part of my taxes to the IRS ALREADY get paid (from the IRS as a "refund") to someone who has paid 0 into the IRS. You DO know that that was started under Clinton and that Obama wants to expand it, right?
When you "look at where the country is today," remember high school - do you want to be the geek or insecure chik in the corner saying, "I wonder if they'd like me better if I wore an Izod shirt tomorrow instead of this plaid one?", OR do you want to be the confident benevolent football captain, of whom some are jealous, of whom some maliciously/wrongfull accuse of being mean, but who is a leader - academically, in student council, in competition, socially, and who has confidence in himself - not b/c he's surrounded by a throng of so-called "friends," but because he knows he is a health/smart/good/centered person, and not b/c others tell him so? It's strength of character.
I believe that the more that the media & the Dems try to convince Americans that America really isn't that great anymore, that it's bad and mean, and that it's our own supposed wrong-doing that is spurring the other countries' resentment against us, the weaker our character gets . . . the more we become that geek in the corner.
When I look at where the country is today, I see a country that hasn't been attacked in the last 7 years - unlike Italy, unlike England, unlike France. I see a free, prosperous, innovative republic that comes to the aid of others as much as we support ourselves. I see a country that brought a democratic elections to Afghanistan, and deposed an evil dictator who committed genocide of his own people and who regularly tortured young children in front of their parents in order to "recruit" their militant iraqi-gestapo. I see a country who gave the Iraqi people the heretofore-never-seen opportunity to volunteer for their own army and police - despite the likelihood of being killed within the year. I see a country whose economy hit a roadblock with the dot-com bubble burst in the 2000 stock-market drop, and who was viciously attacked a year later, and whose economy recovered in about 1 year - unprecedented. And whose economy - even after this Fannie/Freddie debacle (as it will come to be known) - even after the Dow is down to mid-8000 - has STILL gained 400% in the last 20 years. Again, unprecedented. There are more millionaires and billionaires in the USA than there were 20 or even 10 years ago. The USA, as a world-class-leader, continues to pull everyone up on its coat-tails, and continues to give everyone an equal opportunity to make their own coat-tails.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YES, we could really turn into a socialist (1st step) and then a communist (2nd step) country. It can be done - it IS being done. Socialism has taken over Canada and England - and they don't have their freedoms of speech that they used to, and their health care rots, etc. I have done lots of research about communism (Marx, Gramsci), and the communist-founder of American "Community Organizing," (Saul Alinsky) etc., and it's scary how our society has fallen into the game plan of the 1919 stated, documented objectives of the Communist Party. [Attached is a document w/some of the research, with a list of many sources at the end.]
I don't care about what the rest of the world thinks of us. And I don't think America should either. That's a very co-dependent attitude (i.e. I should change my behavior and try to appease those others who don't like me because they don't like me - RATHER THAN, I should change my behavior because I've done some soul searching and my behavior rots. Peer pressure v. personal growth). The rest of the world hates us (and always will) as long as it's convenient for them (and serves their purposes - eg USA foots the bill for oh so many of their needs/objectives, etc) to do so - and as long as lots of Americans, and the American media promote the image that the rest of the world is justified in hating us - which has been the mantra of Americans & the media for a while now. They will stop hating us when we come to their defense. Others may be jealous and point the finger and blame us for all their woes, while we continue to be a leader in every positive movement in the world, but they will really be in great despair if we become weak b/c then they will feel the void (and the vulnerability) that a dictatorship could easily come in and fill. What would have happened in WWII if we hadn't been POSITIVE (about our good will and our good intentions and our good actions) about the USA, and been strong (mentally and financially and armed-forces) or gotten strong? If we had convinced ourselves that we were to blame for it all, we would have been weak & Hitler would have won. It was the BELIEF in ourselves that motivated the charge on DDAY to be a SUCCESSFUL one.
If your dream is for others to view USA as a Great Nation, then I would suggest that we start w/ourselves, each individual, viewing USA as a Great Nation. Not perfect, but Great. And we've been Great for a very long time - and we still are. We have led the world in EVERY ASPECT of society - for the last 200+ years - environment (US was 1st in the world to have EPA standards about anything, everyone else followed), child labor laws, civil rights, individual freedoms, industry standards, improvement of protection of innocent lives/collateral damage in war, war relief to displaced persons, criminal prisoner/pow rights, free enterprise, fair trade, manufacturing, innovation, etc.
What you say is the "scariest" scenario (i.e. that McCain doesn't have an "exit" strategy), I believe is really trying to evaluate current & future probs by looking in a rear-view mirror. That might have been the issue that led to the Vietnam failure (or there might have been other bigger contributing causes to the failure there, such as the lack of belief/support by Americans), but it's not the issue today.
Without an Iraq victory (and btw, I considered it a victory, by the definition of war, when we captured the country's ruler, the rest is post-war management, which the US has been doing since WWI, in better and better ways), there will be no stability in that region - which is the region of the world where the Islamic extremism starts. Even if you take out Al Quada in Afghanistan (so, yes, Obama will still be waging one or more wars - Afghanistan plus whatever else happens), Iraq (w/o a strong domestic govt/police/army) will be subject to radical control - and thus, Islamic terrorist control. There's a reason why Iraq is key.
You were young when the Iran hostage situation happened. Hundreds of our citizens were hostages for about a year in Iran (they had been @ our embassy there) b/c radical Iranians didn't like the US & took over our embassy there. (And let me just say, if they didn't like the US under Carter, they AIN'T NEVER gonna like us.) It took someone strong (Reagan) to win the 1980 election & to say, we aren't negotiating & we aren't messing around, for them to get released.
Then 10 years later, Iraq invades Kuwait & gets slapped with UN sanction after sanction after sanction, and still the world sits by watching an evil dictator accumulate terror and power. (a la 1930s - w/the then-Brittish Prime Minister Chamberlain supposedly successfully negotiating w/Hitler and promising the world "We will have peace in our time" - just so that Hitler could laugh & spit in their face and do whatever the heck he wanted to do - thank God that Churchill (new Brit PM) came along & said "never never never never give up" and FDR came along and said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.")
Then, the 3 or 4 attacks on US soil/army/embassies happened in the 1990s under Clinton - who didn't respond authoritatively - or whose response was a failure - eg Black Hawk Down.
We get attacked on 9/11 & we say we're doing it right this time, and we are told it will take time - and a lot more time than we, the-instant-disposable-30second attention span-Americans are used to. And we say, right on! go get em! And then a few yrs later, after we've successfully and swiftly dethroned the evil dictator, we say, hey this installing stability in the most terrorist-filled region in the world has a price tag that we don't like, let's just buy ourselves some (temporary) comfort by doing something else somewhere else.
The US could've taken that route in June 1944. The Normandy beaches are too hard. There'll be more American boys who die on that one day than all the American soldiers who will die in a 7 year long battle w/Iraq in 2001-2008. Let's not do it - let's do something else, like help the Russians, or invade Italy, or help defend England, b/c really, England's most like us. We, and the whole world, would have lost to Hitler, if we didn't face the problem head on.
And, there was no "end date" - and there NEVER was an end-date promised to the post-WWII clean-up/stabilization. The "clean-up" in WWII was just different - it was the Cold War - and it lasted almost 50 years - until the Berlin Wall came down (under Reagan - who revved up our military, after another appeaser - Carter - tried to dismantle it). The other way it was different? The winners divided up Germany & the other countries & then the USA (again, out of the goodness of our heart - yes, us "meanies") rebuilt Western Germany, et al. So, our adversaries weren't blowing up the new W German armies/police/infrastructure, b/c they were busy rebuilding their piece of the spoils. So, yeah, it's different this time.
I don't want our kids to get drafted anymore than those Moms & Dads in 1942 wanted their kids to sign up for war. But, aren't you glad that both those families and those young people made that sacrifice? In 1942, no one knew about the concentration camps. It was just a matter of, is this guy really after the USA or just a few small countries in Europe that don't even speak English? and if the latter, why should we go?
I don't agree w/China "gobbling up relationships" - no dictator has relationships. And when you are a very strong country like the USA, you don't need to worry about weak countries socializing w/the wrong crowd affecting you - until they wake up and find that the wrong crowd is, once again, taking advantage of them and they're dialing 911 to the USA for help. But, France being an ally of China and an ally of the USA simultaneously is what France does - it's weak. That's just its political nature. The people are La Resistance! But the govt is weak. We'll always be saving their butts from the bullies that they foolishly trusted.
I know this is probably more than you wanted to consider, but I thought you might want to know.
Also, as to the domestic issue of wealth redistribution, you DO know that it's already happening right? Under the EIC, part of my taxes to the IRS ALREADY get paid (from the IRS as a "refund") to someone who has paid 0 into the IRS. You DO know that that was started under Clinton and that Obama wants to expand it, right?
When you "look at where the country is today," remember high school - do you want to be the geek or insecure chik in the corner saying, "I wonder if they'd like me better if I wore an Izod shirt tomorrow instead of this plaid one?", OR do you want to be the confident benevolent football captain, of whom some are jealous, of whom some maliciously/wrongfull accuse of being mean, but who is a leader - academically, in student council, in competition, socially, and who has confidence in himself - not b/c he's surrounded by a throng of so-called "friends," but because he knows he is a health/smart/good/centered person, and not b/c others tell him so? It's strength of character.
I believe that the more that the media & the Dems try to convince Americans that America really isn't that great anymore, that it's bad and mean, and that it's our own supposed wrong-doing that is spurring the other countries' resentment against us, the weaker our character gets . . . the more we become that geek in the corner.
When I look at where the country is today, I see a country that hasn't been attacked in the last 7 years - unlike Italy, unlike England, unlike France. I see a free, prosperous, innovative republic that comes to the aid of others as much as we support ourselves. I see a country that brought a democratic elections to Afghanistan, and deposed an evil dictator who committed genocide of his own people and who regularly tortured young children in front of their parents in order to "recruit" their militant iraqi-gestapo. I see a country who gave the Iraqi people the heretofore-never-seen opportunity to volunteer for their own army and police - despite the likelihood of being killed within the year. I see a country whose economy hit a roadblock with the dot-com bubble burst in the 2000 stock-market drop, and who was viciously attacked a year later, and whose economy recovered in about 1 year - unprecedented. And whose economy - even after this Fannie/Freddie debacle (as it will come to be known) - even after the Dow is down to mid-8000 - has STILL gained 400% in the last 20 years. Again, unprecedented. There are more millionaires and billionaires in the USA than there were 20 or even 10 years ago. The USA, as a world-class-leader, continues to pull everyone up on its coat-tails, and continues to give everyone an equal opportunity to make their own coat-tails.
Capitalism in the Land of the Free - Free Market Risk & Reward
This is my response (here: http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=35639191#post35639191)to a Hannity Forum poster (here: http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=35662071&postcount=186) who suggested that a business owner who needed to cut costs (due to Obama's tax increases) should start by cutting the business owner's personal income rather than cutting back on employees. Here's my reply:
Here's the thing - entrepreneurs & investors don't accept the risks (of say, starting a company) so that they can give away the rewards. Just the opposite. American free-market economy is all about people taking risks for the POSSIBLE benefit of rewards - and possible huge rewards.
When you became that guy's employee - that business owner had ALREADY TAKEN all of the risks - he took a risk in hiring YOU because he was not guaranteed the sales/income to pay you - BUT YOU took absolutely NO risk - you did the time/effort and were guaranteed the income. He did the time/effort/worrying and was guaranteed absolutely zippo.
That's why Dave (of Wendy's) reaped the rewards of entrepreneurship - he left the salary job of hamburger cook to start up a hamburger shop. He had no guarantee of sales or that sales would cover his expenses or his payroll.
He has no obligation to your loyal long-term service, except to the extent it adds to his biz (which it probably does), and you have no obligation to his loyal long-term payment of your paycheck and helping you feed your family - because you can leave anytime and go across the street to anyother company for any reason whatsoever, say, they give you a better parking space.
I believe that this free-market system, the risk/reward scenario, is what makes America the land of great opportunity. And this reality of risk/reward is negated by when a big govt puts its fingers into everything and guarantees all against the downside, thus robbing all of the opportunity of free choice and reward.
America - the land of the free & filled with opportunity - not the land of the guarantee.
Here's the thing - entrepreneurs & investors don't accept the risks (of say, starting a company) so that they can give away the rewards. Just the opposite. American free-market economy is all about people taking risks for the POSSIBLE benefit of rewards - and possible huge rewards.
When you became that guy's employee - that business owner had ALREADY TAKEN all of the risks - he took a risk in hiring YOU because he was not guaranteed the sales/income to pay you - BUT YOU took absolutely NO risk - you did the time/effort and were guaranteed the income. He did the time/effort/worrying and was guaranteed absolutely zippo.
That's why Dave (of Wendy's) reaped the rewards of entrepreneurship - he left the salary job of hamburger cook to start up a hamburger shop. He had no guarantee of sales or that sales would cover his expenses or his payroll.
He has no obligation to your loyal long-term service, except to the extent it adds to his biz (which it probably does), and you have no obligation to his loyal long-term payment of your paycheck and helping you feed your family - because you can leave anytime and go across the street to anyother company for any reason whatsoever, say, they give you a better parking space.
I believe that this free-market system, the risk/reward scenario, is what makes America the land of great opportunity. And this reality of risk/reward is negated by when a big govt puts its fingers into everything and guarantees all against the downside, thus robbing all of the opportunity of free choice and reward.
America - the land of the free & filled with opportunity - not the land of the guarantee.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Obama's beliefs
The more I read & learn about what Obama has said, the more I believe that he has completely contradictory thoughts that he uses and weaves into speeches, and varies what he says depending on his audience.
For example, he is now famous for telling "Joe the Plumber" that it's important to spread the wealth.
But, at the Saddleback Civil Forum, he told Paster Rick Warren that he thinks Americans shouldn't get things for free - that if his grandparents sacrificed to make a better life for their Country and their children, then so should we (vis-a-vis the environment).
But, his "Issues & Policies" pages of his website speak to tons of "free" things from the Government - in lots of areas from IRS refund checks when you didn't pay taxes, to money for college, to volunteering, to health care, etc.
This is just one example.
The blog post below "What is Obama's ideology" sets forth many many examples of him doing the same double-step with other supporters in other issues - see, for example, what he told his Harvard Law Review colleage regarding conservative Constitutional interpretation, versus what he says now.
- see also what he told his Chicago supporters when he was an IL State Senator versus what he says now
I really think Obama is trying to be all things to all people. I think that he really believes that that's what a "Uniter" is and does.
And, personally, I might be able to conclude that this is his passion - to be all things to all people - and thus, not to have a grounded center - because of his upbringing. He is the result of a complete mix of contradictions - abandonned by his father, a hippie mother, a Kenyan citizen and an American citizen, then moved and lived in Indonesia under an Indonesian step-father, then lived with his American (from Kansas, but then lived in Hawaii) maternal grandmother. A very mixed-up childhood, with lots of issues.
It seems to me that his personal life challenge is to create unity among that chaos - and that this is what he is trying to "be" politically.
However, in my opinion, it really results in a bunch of appeasement.
And, in case anyone forgets (or doesn't know about) Chamberlain, appeasement fails to lead. Appeasement ends in disaster.
At best, his attempts to be all things will come to an end if he becomes President, because he will have to "take a stand" on issues, or he will pawn-off the responsibility (and the blame) - which will also be disasterous.
For example, he is now famous for telling "Joe the Plumber" that it's important to spread the wealth.
But, at the Saddleback Civil Forum, he told Paster Rick Warren that he thinks Americans shouldn't get things for free - that if his grandparents sacrificed to make a better life for their Country and their children, then so should we (vis-a-vis the environment).
But, his "Issues & Policies" pages of his website speak to tons of "free" things from the Government - in lots of areas from IRS refund checks when you didn't pay taxes, to money for college, to volunteering, to health care, etc.
This is just one example.
The blog post below "What is Obama's ideology" sets forth many many examples of him doing the same double-step with other supporters in other issues - see, for example, what he told his Harvard Law Review colleage regarding conservative Constitutional interpretation, versus what he says now.
- see also what he told his Chicago supporters when he was an IL State Senator versus what he says now
I really think Obama is trying to be all things to all people. I think that he really believes that that's what a "Uniter" is and does.
And, personally, I might be able to conclude that this is his passion - to be all things to all people - and thus, not to have a grounded center - because of his upbringing. He is the result of a complete mix of contradictions - abandonned by his father, a hippie mother, a Kenyan citizen and an American citizen, then moved and lived in Indonesia under an Indonesian step-father, then lived with his American (from Kansas, but then lived in Hawaii) maternal grandmother. A very mixed-up childhood, with lots of issues.
It seems to me that his personal life challenge is to create unity among that chaos - and that this is what he is trying to "be" politically.
However, in my opinion, it really results in a bunch of appeasement.
And, in case anyone forgets (or doesn't know about) Chamberlain, appeasement fails to lead. Appeasement ends in disaster.
At best, his attempts to be all things will come to an end if he becomes President, because he will have to "take a stand" on issues, or he will pawn-off the responsibility (and the blame) - which will also be disasterous.
Spread the Wealth QUIZ - Do you like it?
If your (or your friend's) Presidential candidate says that it's important to "spread the wealth," would he also say (and would you agree with him)?:
Would your candidate say something like that?
Is it in line with his ideology?
Would you agree with that idea?
Does it sound good to you?
SCROLL DOWN
Do you know who originally said that?
Are you sure that you know your candidate's ideology AND that you know your history?
Might you want a quick "Cliff's Notes" brush up on history BEFORE you pull that lever on Nov. 4th?
ANSWER:
Karl Marx, the father of Communism, in his 1875 "Critique of the Gotha Program"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability_to_each_according_to_his_need
Karl Marx said Socialism would be an intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism.
Socialism is already running rampant in Canada, England and France, resulting in criminal laws that inhibit free speech, and horrible health care (with no incentives for companies to research and develope cures, and long waiting lists for treatment, e.g. people dying of cancer b/c they can't get chemo treatments in time).
Isn't is scary how "lovely" and "warm & fuzzy" some people can make Marxism/Communism sound?
Do you know who is/was also a Marxist?
1. the founder of American "Community Organizing" - Saul Alinsky - whose methods Obama studied & taught to various Community Organizing groups
2. Bill Ayers - who hired Obama to be the Chairman of his Board of Directors for his radical $50 million education funding program
- Ayers may have stopped blowing things up, but he never stopped being a Marxist.
"We should take/tax from each according to his/her ability, and we should give/refund to each, according to his/her needs."
Would your candidate say something like that?
Is it in line with his ideology?
Would you agree with that idea?
Does it sound good to you?
SCROLL DOWN
Do you know who originally said that?
Are you sure that you know your candidate's ideology AND that you know your history?
Might you want a quick "Cliff's Notes" brush up on history BEFORE you pull that lever on Nov. 4th?
ANSWER:
Karl Marx, the father of Communism, in his 1875 "Critique of the Gotha Program"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability_to_each_according_to_his_need
Karl Marx said Socialism would be an intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism.
Socialism is already running rampant in Canada, England and France, resulting in criminal laws that inhibit free speech, and horrible health care (with no incentives for companies to research and develope cures, and long waiting lists for treatment, e.g. people dying of cancer b/c they can't get chemo treatments in time).
Isn't is scary how "lovely" and "warm & fuzzy" some people can make Marxism/Communism sound?
Do you know who is/was also a Marxist?
1. the founder of American "Community Organizing" - Saul Alinsky - whose methods Obama studied & taught to various Community Organizing groups
2. Bill Ayers - who hired Obama to be the Chairman of his Board of Directors for his radical $50 million education funding program
- Ayers may have stopped blowing things up, but he never stopped being a Marxist.
What is Obama's Ideology?
3 key people to understanding what the Obama ideology (& that of the radical left) in the USA is really about:
(1) Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937) helped found the Italian Communist Party.
Why is Gramsci relevant?
Because his "The Prison Notebooks", contain a strategy that promises to win the world to Marxism voluntarily. Gramsci said that strong Western democracies [think USA] can only be taken by infiltration of the organs of their culture:
- churches
- education systems
- newspapers, magazines, media,
- works of serious literature produced in those democracies.
Gramsci was disillusioned by the brute force of Russian Marxism [as was Saul Alinsky], but he still embraced Marxism as the correct system to be pushed on the world.
Gramsci said that a Marxist system that was imposed by force would eventually fail (think USSR), BUT a system that was sold to the people through their existing institutions would eventually be embraced and spread as if it were naturally a people's own.
Who studied Gramsci and his strategies? Saul Alinsky.
(2) Saul Alinsky (1909 - 1972) a radical leftist, anti-capitalist, who favored Marxist ideas over all others, (but had differences with the Russian communist govt & Official Communist party b/c they wouldn't oppose Hitler), founded modern Community Organizing in America, with a focus on Chicago, IL. Author of 2 books, including "Rules for Radicals."
Community Organizing is essentially organizing people to boycott, protest and threaten in unique ways in order to get the economically and politically powerful ("the haves") to give them ("the have-nots") what they want.
What is the Gramsci-Alinsky Connection?
- both believed in Marxism, a.k.a. "redistribute/spread the wealth"
- both were anti-capitalist
- both sought to infiltrate/organize the "organs of culture" to create a marxist revolution (churches, schools, media)
- Alinsky applied Gramsci's methods for marxist revolution to 20th c. USA
What is the Alinsky-Obama Connection?
For 3 years (1985 - 1988) between graduating from Columbia University (NYC) and attending Harvard Law, Obama worked as a Community Organizer in Chicago (with an entity called, "Developing Communities Project" - "DCP", a subsidiary of Gamaliel). He was trained, indoctrinated in, and then eventually trained others (including ACORN and Gamaliel) in the Saul Alinsky methods of Community Organizing.
In fact, he went to law school not to become a lawyer, but to learn the politics of power.
In 1988, Obama wrote an essay that became Chapter 4 in the book "After Alinsky." Here's an excerpt:
Do you see the same Gramsci/Alinsky language in Obama's essay?
In case you still doubt Obama's dedication/indoctrination in the radical/marxist Saul Alinsky method of Community Organizing (aka agitation), read what Saul's son [L. David Alinsky] wrote in his Boston Globe editorial on August 31, 2008 about the 2008 DNC:
[By the way, ACORN you must know of by now. Do you know about Gamaliel? Here's their identity: "Segregation and racism are primary and driving forces inside American politics, culture and society. Racism fuels the current injustice and the current political reality we experience every day. We have a vision for our country that is based on radical hope, inclusive community, and shared abundance for all." Hmmm, does it sound like any radical Chicago pastor that you've heard of, say, Rev. Jeremiah Wright?]
(3) Bill Ayers (born 1944) a radical leftist terrorist (starting with his bombing of Chicago police station in 1969 to his 1975 bombing of the Kennecott Corporation); 1981 - said "Guilty as hell, free as a bird. America is a great country." 2001 - said "I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." His current college office door is currently plastered with pictures of Malcolm X and police assassin Abu-Jamal.
From about 1982 to 1987 (while Obama was @ Columbia/NYC), Ayers was going to Bank Street (Teacher's) College (just down the street from Columbia) to get his M.Ed., & his M.Ed. and Ed.D. at Columbia.
QUERY: Could Obama's interest in the radical left have began during his time at Columbia University and his 2 years that he stayed in NYC after that (1981 - 1985), during which time the radical, unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was at Columbia (and Bank Street College just down the road) getting 3 advanced teaching degrees? I would love to have someone ask Obama if he met Ayers while at Columbia/NYC.
Remember too that Obama has refused to allow Columbia and Harvard to release any information of his applications or records.
Remember, Obama had absolutely no connection to Chicago up to 1985. Where did he get the idea to go from NYC to Chicago to become a Community Organizer?
(Here's a brief summary of Obama's residences up to 1985 when he went to Chicago: Obama was born in 1961 to a Kenyan father - who was just visiting HI for a college education - and American (hippie) mother, instantly giving Obama a dual citizenship. They divorced when he was age 2. In 1967 she remarried to an Indonesian, and moved Obama to Indonesia, and resided with him there, thus giving him an Indonesian citizenship. 4 years later, in 1971, Obama left his mother to live with his maternal grandmother in HI, and attended public school in HI from 5th grade through his h.s. graduation in 1979. He then went to college in CA for 2 years, then transferred to Columbia and graduated from Columbia in 1983 and continued to live in NYC until 1985. Obama would later travel under his Indonesian passport at age 19/20. Do you see any Illinois or Chicago connection here that would prompt him to go to Chicago in 1985? Although Michelle is from Chicago, he would not meet her until 1989 while a summer intern at a Chicago law firm.)
1991 - Obama graduates from Harvard Law and returns to Chicago
- in 1989 he had met Michelle (raised in Chicago) while a summer intern at a Chicago law firm
- in late 1980's he had started attending Rev. Wright's church
- upon arriving in Chicago in 1991/1992 (and continuing to 2004), he teaches at Univ of Chicago Law School as an "instructor" - during his time there, he taught 3 classes - a favorite of his being "voting rights."
- was a lawyer for only 3 years (1993 - 1996) at a small Chicago law firm (specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic dev)
- 1992 - Rev. Wright marries Obama & Michelle
- by 1991 (and since 1987) Bill Ayers is back in Chicago, teaching education at the (state) Univ of IL @ Chicago (query: Doesn't it bother the citizens of Illinois that their tax money pays the salary of an American terrorist?)
The Boards of Directors & Money Connections to Bill Ayers
(1) Woods Foundation of Chicago
1993 - 2002 - Obama was on the Board of Directors for the Woods Foundation of Chicago
1999 - present - Bill Ayers was on the Board of Directors for the Woods Foundation of Chicago
Who is the Woods Foundation? It was the first to fund Obama's DCP in 1985.
Okay, what was that again? Yes, Obama runs and teaches for the Alinsky-model-DCP from 1985 - 1988, which was funded by the Woods Foundation, and then 5 years later is hired by the Woods Foundation to be on the Board of Directors, eventually serving with Bill Ayers.
Who got MONEY from Woods while Obama sat on the Board?
You guessed it! Ayers. Ayers' radical school reform orgs, Small Schools Workshop and the Chicago Forum for School Change. (Ayers was their co-founder and co-director.)
How much Money and When?
1995 - $20,000
2001 - $35,000
(2) Chicago Annenburg Challenge ("CAC")
Who is CAC? In 1993/1994, Bill Ayers co-wrote a grant request for apx. $50 million, and submitted it to the Annenburg Foundation. The grant was a request for monies to start an organization that would fund radical education reform non-profit-orgs (npo's) and efforts in Chicago. In January 1995, Bill Ayers got the grant.
Obviously, Ayers became the 1st Chairman of the educational policy arm of CAC (called the "Collaborative"). After-all, he was the "brain-child" and "guiding force" of the CAC; he did ask for the money so that he could promote his anti-establishment, anti-American, radical education reform agenda.
Ayers' radical education reform philosophy includes:- infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, & downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism
- teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.
- 1995 (i.e. the start of CAC) Ayers' quote: "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist,"
CAC was "housed" at Univ of IL @ Chicago, presumably because of Ayers' position/offices there. Univ of IL @ Chicago also "housed" Ayers' 2 radical NPO's, Small Schools Workshop (Ayers was founder/co-director 1992 - 2002) and the Chicago Forum for School Change.
Who did Bill Ayers hire to be the 1st Chairman of the Board & President of CAC (the money part of CAC) in June 1995? Obama.
[At first Obama denied that Ayers recruited him, but recently released CAC records prove that it is true. Ayers was part of a group of five to assemble the initial Board.]
1995 - 1999 - Obama was CAC's Chairman & President, Board member until 2001 (CAC ended in 2001 - giving its assets to another entity, which Obama continued to serve on its Board until 2004, along with Ayer's brother and father)
- 1995 - Ayers was "ex officio" member of the Board of CAC
- 1995 - 2002 - Ayers was co-chair of the Collaborative, the education policy arm of the CAC
- Obama, as Chairman of the Board has "significant consultation" & worked "as a team" with Ayers, co-chair of the Collaborative (educ. policy) arm of CAC
- CAC's records from 1995 says it was a "Founder-Lead Foundation"
- CAC, especially in 1995, faced internal problems with self-dealing, regarding its money awards to orgs of its own board members, e.g. Ayers' radical education organizations, and those of his friends
QUERY: Why doesn't Obama mention his CAC position in his 2 biographies?
Who got MONEY from Woods while Obama sat on the Board?
You guessed it! Ayers.
Ayers' radical school reform orgs, Small Schools Workshop and the Chicago Forum for School Change. (Ayers was their co-founder & co-director.)
What was that again?
Yes, Ayers hired Obama to run his grant monies, and then Obama turned around & gave the grant monies to Ayers' and his friends radical groups.
QUERY: Can Obama identify conflicts of interest?
Under Obama's direction, CAC gave over $100 million to radical leftist groups:
"Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)." (S. Kurtz) (Obama had done giving community organization training to ACORN, and ACORN members had volunteered on his campaign.)
Groups "like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange [who received CAC funds] focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement." (S. Kurtz)
How much Money did Ayers' groups get and When?
1996 - $175,000
1997 - $260,000
Obama's continued connections to Ayers & continued Conflicts of Interest
(1) In late 1995, Bill Ayers hosted a political gathering for the leftist liberals in Chicago to give then-State Senator Alice Palmer a stage to announce that she would not be running for re-election in 1996, but rather, would be running for the US Congress - AND to announce HER hand-PICKED successor - Obama. An attendee at the event said this on her blog in 2005: "[Ayers & Dohrn] were launching [Obama] - introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."
What is Alice Palmer's ideology? Well, she went to Moscow in 1986 to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Now, for the rest of the story: Palmer lost the primaries for US Congress & came back to Chicago and asked Obama to step aside so she could run for re-election. Not only did Obama refuse, but he had her State Senate re-election race petition signatures disqualified on technicalities. Then, he had the other Democrats in the State Senate race disqualified on the same basis. So, he won the State Senate primary unopposed.
QUERY: What qualifications and connections to IL did Obama really have to run for State Senator in 1996?
- Had run an entity (CAC) for a few months before announcing his campaign.
- Had been on a board of directors (Woods) for a few years.
- Had taught some classes at law school.
- Was a lawyer for a couple years.
- Was a community organizer for three years.
(2) Obama's CAC Board Chairmanship, President term, and board tenure (of CAC and its successor), overlaps his Illinois State Senator term for 8 years - from 1997 to 2004. AND, Obama's Wood's Foundation board membership overlaps his Illinois State Senator term for 6 years - from 1997 to 2002.
So, while Obama is funding radical far-left groups like ACORN and Gamaliel and DCP, he is a sitting State Senator - making decisions for IL.
QUERY: Was the radical far-left community organizing and other groups ideology that he was funding the same ideology that was informing his decision-making as a Senator?
QUERY: If not, how does Obama explain that duality of thinking and belief system?
(3) 2004 - Obama stops his teaching and board memberships when he runs for US Senate.
MY THOUGHTS
(1) It's about a web of ideology - not an association.
It's purely my conjecture, but I believe that ever since Obama's application to the Columbia, the ultra-lib Columbia powers-that-be hand-picked Obama to be a polished political leader with radical liberal ideas for the 21st century that could be packaged into an acceptable form for the unsuspecting majority.
(2) Beyond connections: Obama's "uniting" - aka waffling & equivocating
Obama has a history - and a reputation - for being a "uniter" going back to his election as President of Harvard Law Review, and his work on the CAC Board, as well as his statements as a State Senator, and his Presidential election. But, his uniting usually takes the form of (a) either slightly changing the language of an idea to make it more palatable to his disgruntled audience, and thus, take the stuffing out of the original idea, or (b) changing his position all together while telling prior supporters who like the original position that he'll still "take care of them."
Ackerman, the Hyde Park activist, complained of Obama becoming too "conservative" for his tastes, "But any candidate running for president is going to strive for broader appeal and move more to the center — I don’t believe that Barack has departed from his basic principles.”
Dr. Young (another attendee at the 1995 Ayers/Obama coming out party) said that he was disappointed that Obama is “equivocating” on his support for [Young's pet issue - single-payer health care], after Obama had said in the past that he supported it. But he said Obama’s style — “cautious, deliberate, defensive” — was also familiar from the senator’s Hyde Park days. “It’s part of his stated strategy: He wants to get maximum unity.”
At CAC, when board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community [organizing] groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat," Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Weber's objections.
QUERY: What does this mean? Did he assure Weber that the schools wouldn't be threatened, which would be a meaningless assurance? Or did he persuade the Collaborative's Director (Ayers) to change the proposed community organizing groups and the proposed radical educational reform policies, which hardly seems plausible? Or, did he say enough cautious, equivocating words, that both Weber and Ayers felt okay?
At Harvard Law Review, Obama won in part by convincing the conservative minority of law students that he would treat them fairly. But, Obama also said, "I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this." He reportedly ended minor disputes with the words, "Just remember, folks: Nobody reads it."
West - then teaching at another law school - was invited by Obama to fill a Law Review slot and wrote an essay for the Law Review. She said that Obama "clearly agreed with me at the time that a shift in constitutional thinking from a rights-based discourse to one that centered [on] responsibility and duties ... would be a good thing."
QUERY: Does this square with Obama's proposed entitlement and tax programs?
(3) LASTLY CONSIDER THIS QUERY
QUERY: Does Obama have a set of core beliefs, or, an ideology? If so, does anyone really know what it is?
- Is it the marxist community organizing ideology of Alinsky, that he worked so hard for and trained others in?
- Is it the radical small "c" communist reform ideology of Ayers, whose radical groups he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to?
- Is it the ideology of activist Ackerman, who believes that Obama hasn't "departed from his basic principles," but has just voted a little to the middle to appease a larger audience?
- Is it the ideology of equivocating, as Dr. Young said from his experience with Obama changing his mind about a single-payer-health-care plan?
- Is it the ideology of Ayers' Collaborative's anti-establishment school reform, or the ideology of not wanting to politically threaten school principals?
- Is it the ideology of appeasement by convincing others that no one will notice the distinctions?
- Is it the ideology of West's responsibility-centered-Constitutional interpretation, which she believed (at the time) that Obama agreed with? or
- Is it the ideology of pushing a minority perspective in issues and policies, as he personally specifically stated?
SOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/communism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/newly-released-documents-highlight-obamas-relationship-with-ayers/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/communism.htm
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0679721134/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjMxNA==
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2008/08/fascist-obama-campaign.html
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/who-is-saul-d-alinsky/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html
http://cryptome.org/
http://cryptome.org/ayers-vita.doc
http://www.bankstreet.edu/aboutbsc/visiting.html
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-did-barack-obama-meet-bill-ayers.html
http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/15/whats-on-bill-ayers-door/
http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky14.htm
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
http://westernfrontamerica.com/2008/04/23/bill-ayers-resume/
http://www.amazon.com/Let-Them-Call-Me-Rebel/dp/067973418X/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t
http://www.amazon.com/Reveille-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721126/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product
(1) Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937) helped found the Italian Communist Party.
Why is Gramsci relevant?
Because his "The Prison Notebooks", contain a strategy that promises to win the world to Marxism voluntarily. Gramsci said that strong Western democracies [think USA] can only be taken by infiltration of the organs of their culture:
- churches
- education systems
- newspapers, magazines, media,
- works of serious literature produced in those democracies.
Gramsci was disillusioned by the brute force of Russian Marxism [as was Saul Alinsky], but he still embraced Marxism as the correct system to be pushed on the world.
Gramsci said that a Marxist system that was imposed by force would eventually fail (think USSR), BUT a system that was sold to the people through their existing institutions would eventually be embraced and spread as if it were naturally a people's own.
Who studied Gramsci and his strategies? Saul Alinsky.
(2) Saul Alinsky (1909 - 1972) a radical leftist, anti-capitalist, who favored Marxist ideas over all others, (but had differences with the Russian communist govt & Official Communist party b/c they wouldn't oppose Hitler), founded modern Community Organizing in America, with a focus on Chicago, IL. Author of 2 books, including "Rules for Radicals."
Community Organizing is essentially organizing people to boycott, protest and threaten in unique ways in order to get the economically and politically powerful ("the haves") to give them ("the have-nots") what they want.
What is the Gramsci-Alinsky Connection?
- both believed in Marxism, a.k.a. "redistribute/spread the wealth"
- both were anti-capitalist
- both sought to infiltrate/organize the "organs of culture" to create a marxist revolution (churches, schools, media)
- Alinsky applied Gramsci's methods for marxist revolution to 20th c. USA
What is the Alinsky-Obama Connection?
For 3 years (1985 - 1988) between graduating from Columbia University (NYC) and attending Harvard Law, Obama worked as a Community Organizer in Chicago (with an entity called, "Developing Communities Project" - "DCP", a subsidiary of Gamaliel). He was trained, indoctrinated in, and then eventually trained others (including ACORN and Gamaliel) in the Saul Alinsky methods of Community Organizing.
In fact, he went to law school not to become a lawyer, but to learn the politics of power.
In 1988, Obama wrote an essay that became Chapter 4 in the book "After Alinsky." Here's an excerpt:
This means bringing together churches, block clubs, parent groups and any other institutions in a given community to pay dues, hire organizers, conduct research, develop leadership, hold rallies and education campaigns, and begin drawing up plans on a whole range of issues — jobs, education, crime, etc. Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to community needs.
Do you see the same Gramsci/Alinsky language in Obama's essay?
In case you still doubt Obama's dedication/indoctrination in the radical/marxist Saul Alinsky method of Community Organizing (aka agitation), read what Saul's son [L. David Alinsky] wrote in his Boston Globe editorial on August 31, 2008 about the 2008 DNC:
Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father [Saul Alinsky] always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lesson well.
[By the way, ACORN you must know of by now. Do you know about Gamaliel? Here's their identity: "Segregation and racism are primary and driving forces inside American politics, culture and society. Racism fuels the current injustice and the current political reality we experience every day. We have a vision for our country that is based on radical hope, inclusive community, and shared abundance for all." Hmmm, does it sound like any radical Chicago pastor that you've heard of, say, Rev. Jeremiah Wright?]
(3) Bill Ayers (born 1944) a radical leftist terrorist (starting with his bombing of Chicago police station in 1969 to his 1975 bombing of the Kennecott Corporation); 1981 - said "Guilty as hell, free as a bird. America is a great country." 2001 - said "I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." His current college office door is currently plastered with pictures of Malcolm X and police assassin Abu-Jamal.
From about 1982 to 1987 (while Obama was @ Columbia/NYC), Ayers was going to Bank Street (Teacher's) College (just down the street from Columbia) to get his M.Ed., & his M.Ed. and Ed.D. at Columbia.
QUERY: Could Obama's interest in the radical left have began during his time at Columbia University and his 2 years that he stayed in NYC after that (1981 - 1985), during which time the radical, unrepentant terrorist, Bill Ayers, was at Columbia (and Bank Street College just down the road) getting 3 advanced teaching degrees? I would love to have someone ask Obama if he met Ayers while at Columbia/NYC.
Remember too that Obama has refused to allow Columbia and Harvard to release any information of his applications or records.
Remember, Obama had absolutely no connection to Chicago up to 1985. Where did he get the idea to go from NYC to Chicago to become a Community Organizer?
(Here's a brief summary of Obama's residences up to 1985 when he went to Chicago: Obama was born in 1961 to a Kenyan father - who was just visiting HI for a college education - and American (hippie) mother, instantly giving Obama a dual citizenship. They divorced when he was age 2. In 1967 she remarried to an Indonesian, and moved Obama to Indonesia, and resided with him there, thus giving him an Indonesian citizenship. 4 years later, in 1971, Obama left his mother to live with his maternal grandmother in HI, and attended public school in HI from 5th grade through his h.s. graduation in 1979. He then went to college in CA for 2 years, then transferred to Columbia and graduated from Columbia in 1983 and continued to live in NYC until 1985. Obama would later travel under his Indonesian passport at age 19/20. Do you see any Illinois or Chicago connection here that would prompt him to go to Chicago in 1985? Although Michelle is from Chicago, he would not meet her until 1989 while a summer intern at a Chicago law firm.)
1991 - Obama graduates from Harvard Law and returns to Chicago
- in 1989 he had met Michelle (raised in Chicago) while a summer intern at a Chicago law firm
- in late 1980's he had started attending Rev. Wright's church
- upon arriving in Chicago in 1991/1992 (and continuing to 2004), he teaches at Univ of Chicago Law School as an "instructor" - during his time there, he taught 3 classes - a favorite of his being "voting rights."
- was a lawyer for only 3 years (1993 - 1996) at a small Chicago law firm (specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic dev)
- 1992 - Rev. Wright marries Obama & Michelle
- by 1991 (and since 1987) Bill Ayers is back in Chicago, teaching education at the (state) Univ of IL @ Chicago (query: Doesn't it bother the citizens of Illinois that their tax money pays the salary of an American terrorist?)
The Boards of Directors & Money Connections to Bill Ayers
(1) Woods Foundation of Chicago
1993 - 2002 - Obama was on the Board of Directors for the Woods Foundation of Chicago
1999 - present - Bill Ayers was on the Board of Directors for the Woods Foundation of Chicago
Who is the Woods Foundation? It was the first to fund Obama's DCP in 1985.
Okay, what was that again? Yes, Obama runs and teaches for the Alinsky-model-DCP from 1985 - 1988, which was funded by the Woods Foundation, and then 5 years later is hired by the Woods Foundation to be on the Board of Directors, eventually serving with Bill Ayers.
Who got MONEY from Woods while Obama sat on the Board?
You guessed it! Ayers. Ayers' radical school reform orgs, Small Schools Workshop and the Chicago Forum for School Change. (Ayers was their co-founder and co-director.)
How much Money and When?
1995 - $20,000
2001 - $35,000
(2) Chicago Annenburg Challenge ("CAC")
Who is CAC? In 1993/1994, Bill Ayers co-wrote a grant request for apx. $50 million, and submitted it to the Annenburg Foundation. The grant was a request for monies to start an organization that would fund radical education reform non-profit-orgs (npo's) and efforts in Chicago. In January 1995, Bill Ayers got the grant.
Obviously, Ayers became the 1st Chairman of the educational policy arm of CAC (called the "Collaborative"). After-all, he was the "brain-child" and "guiding force" of the CAC; he did ask for the money so that he could promote his anti-establishment, anti-American, radical education reform agenda.
Ayers' radical education reform philosophy includes:- infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, & downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism
- teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.
- 1995 (i.e. the start of CAC) Ayers' quote: "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist,"
CAC was "housed" at Univ of IL @ Chicago, presumably because of Ayers' position/offices there. Univ of IL @ Chicago also "housed" Ayers' 2 radical NPO's, Small Schools Workshop (Ayers was founder/co-director 1992 - 2002) and the Chicago Forum for School Change.
Who did Bill Ayers hire to be the 1st Chairman of the Board & President of CAC (the money part of CAC) in June 1995? Obama.
[At first Obama denied that Ayers recruited him, but recently released CAC records prove that it is true. Ayers was part of a group of five to assemble the initial Board.]
1995 - 1999 - Obama was CAC's Chairman & President, Board member until 2001 (CAC ended in 2001 - giving its assets to another entity, which Obama continued to serve on its Board until 2004, along with Ayer's brother and father)
- 1995 - Ayers was "ex officio" member of the Board of CAC
- 1995 - 2002 - Ayers was co-chair of the Collaborative, the education policy arm of the CAC
- Obama, as Chairman of the Board has "significant consultation" & worked "as a team" with Ayers, co-chair of the Collaborative (educ. policy) arm of CAC
- CAC's records from 1995 says it was a "Founder-Lead Foundation"
- CAC, especially in 1995, faced internal problems with self-dealing, regarding its money awards to orgs of its own board members, e.g. Ayers' radical education organizations, and those of his friends
QUERY: Why doesn't Obama mention his CAC position in his 2 biographies?
Who got MONEY from Woods while Obama sat on the Board?
You guessed it! Ayers.
Ayers' radical school reform orgs, Small Schools Workshop and the Chicago Forum for School Change. (Ayers was their co-founder & co-director.)
What was that again?
Yes, Ayers hired Obama to run his grant monies, and then Obama turned around & gave the grant monies to Ayers' and his friends radical groups.
QUERY: Can Obama identify conflicts of interest?
Under Obama's direction, CAC gave over $100 million to radical leftist groups:
"Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn)." (S. Kurtz) (Obama had done giving community organization training to ACORN, and ACORN members had volunteered on his campaign.)
Groups "like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange [who received CAC funds] focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement." (S. Kurtz)
How much Money did Ayers' groups get and When?
1996 - $175,000
1997 - $260,000
Obama's continued connections to Ayers & continued Conflicts of Interest
(1) In late 1995, Bill Ayers hosted a political gathering for the leftist liberals in Chicago to give then-State Senator Alice Palmer a stage to announce that she would not be running for re-election in 1996, but rather, would be running for the US Congress - AND to announce HER hand-PICKED successor - Obama. An attendee at the event said this on her blog in 2005: "[Ayers & Dohrn] were launching [Obama] - introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."
What is Alice Palmer's ideology? Well, she went to Moscow in 1986 to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Now, for the rest of the story: Palmer lost the primaries for US Congress & came back to Chicago and asked Obama to step aside so she could run for re-election. Not only did Obama refuse, but he had her State Senate re-election race petition signatures disqualified on technicalities. Then, he had the other Democrats in the State Senate race disqualified on the same basis. So, he won the State Senate primary unopposed.
QUERY: What qualifications and connections to IL did Obama really have to run for State Senator in 1996?
- Had run an entity (CAC) for a few months before announcing his campaign.
- Had been on a board of directors (Woods) for a few years.
- Had taught some classes at law school.
- Was a lawyer for a couple years.
- Was a community organizer for three years.
(2) Obama's CAC Board Chairmanship, President term, and board tenure (of CAC and its successor), overlaps his Illinois State Senator term for 8 years - from 1997 to 2004. AND, Obama's Wood's Foundation board membership overlaps his Illinois State Senator term for 6 years - from 1997 to 2002.
So, while Obama is funding radical far-left groups like ACORN and Gamaliel and DCP, he is a sitting State Senator - making decisions for IL.
QUERY: Was the radical far-left community organizing and other groups ideology that he was funding the same ideology that was informing his decision-making as a Senator?
QUERY: If not, how does Obama explain that duality of thinking and belief system?
(3) 2004 - Obama stops his teaching and board memberships when he runs for US Senate.
MY THOUGHTS
(1) It's about a web of ideology - not an association.
It's purely my conjecture, but I believe that ever since Obama's application to the Columbia, the ultra-lib Columbia powers-that-be hand-picked Obama to be a polished political leader with radical liberal ideas for the 21st century that could be packaged into an acceptable form for the unsuspecting majority.
(2) Beyond connections: Obama's "uniting" - aka waffling & equivocating
Obama has a history - and a reputation - for being a "uniter" going back to his election as President of Harvard Law Review, and his work on the CAC Board, as well as his statements as a State Senator, and his Presidential election. But, his uniting usually takes the form of (a) either slightly changing the language of an idea to make it more palatable to his disgruntled audience, and thus, take the stuffing out of the original idea, or (b) changing his position all together while telling prior supporters who like the original position that he'll still "take care of them."
Ackerman, the Hyde Park activist, complained of Obama becoming too "conservative" for his tastes, "But any candidate running for president is going to strive for broader appeal and move more to the center — I don’t believe that Barack has departed from his basic principles.”
Dr. Young (another attendee at the 1995 Ayers/Obama coming out party) said that he was disappointed that Obama is “equivocating” on his support for [Young's pet issue - single-payer health care], after Obama had said in the past that he supported it. But he said Obama’s style — “cautious, deliberate, defensive” — was also familiar from the senator’s Hyde Park days. “It’s part of his stated strategy: He wants to get maximum unity.”
At CAC, when board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community [organizing] groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat," Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Weber's objections.
QUERY: What does this mean? Did he assure Weber that the schools wouldn't be threatened, which would be a meaningless assurance? Or did he persuade the Collaborative's Director (Ayers) to change the proposed community organizing groups and the proposed radical educational reform policies, which hardly seems plausible? Or, did he say enough cautious, equivocating words, that both Weber and Ayers felt okay?
At Harvard Law Review, Obama won in part by convincing the conservative minority of law students that he would treat them fairly. But, Obama also said, "I personally am interested in pushing a strong minority perspective. I'm fairly opinionated about this." He reportedly ended minor disputes with the words, "Just remember, folks: Nobody reads it."
West - then teaching at another law school - was invited by Obama to fill a Law Review slot and wrote an essay for the Law Review. She said that Obama "clearly agreed with me at the time that a shift in constitutional thinking from a rights-based discourse to one that centered [on] responsibility and duties ... would be a good thing."
QUERY: Does this square with Obama's proposed entitlement and tax programs?
(3) LASTLY CONSIDER THIS QUERY
QUERY: Does Obama have a set of core beliefs, or, an ideology? If so, does anyone really know what it is?
- Is it the marxist community organizing ideology of Alinsky, that he worked so hard for and trained others in?
- Is it the radical small "c" communist reform ideology of Ayers, whose radical groups he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to?
- Is it the ideology of activist Ackerman, who believes that Obama hasn't "departed from his basic principles," but has just voted a little to the middle to appease a larger audience?
- Is it the ideology of equivocating, as Dr. Young said from his experience with Obama changing his mind about a single-payer-health-care plan?
- Is it the ideology of Ayers' Collaborative's anti-establishment school reform, or the ideology of not wanting to politically threaten school principals?
- Is it the ideology of appeasement by convincing others that no one will notice the distinctions?
- Is it the ideology of West's responsibility-centered-Constitutional interpretation, which she believed (at the time) that Obama agreed with? or
- Is it the ideology of pushing a minority perspective in issues and policies, as he personally specifically stated?
SOURCES
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/communism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DC1631F935A35751C0A966958260
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
http://www.edwoj.com/Alinsky/AlinskyObamaChapter1990.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTgwZTVmN2QyNzk2MmUxMzA5OTg0ODZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/26/newly-released-documents-highlight-obamas-relationship-with-ayers/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/communism.htm
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0679721134/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=&showViewpoints=1&colid=&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjMxNA==
http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/2008/08/fascist-obama-campaign.html
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2008/who-is-saul-d-alinsky/
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html
http://cryptome.org/
http://cryptome.org/ayers-vita.doc
http://www.bankstreet.edu/aboutbsc/visiting.html
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-did-barack-obama-meet-bill-ayers.html
http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/15/whats-on-bill-ayers-door/
http://www.progress.org/2003/alinsky14.htm
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2008/08/31/son_sees_fathers_handiwork_in_convention/?s_campaign=8315
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
http://westernfrontamerica.com/2008/04/23/bill-ayers-resume/
http://www.amazon.com/Let-Them-Call-Me-Rebel/dp/067973418X/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t
http://www.amazon.com/Reveille-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721126/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product
QUIZ: 3 Neighbors & Sam, the Snow-Removal Guy
3 neighbors - John, Sarah, & Barry - decide on November to hire a guy - Sam - as a group, to shovel their driveways for the winter. Sam says he'll do all 3 driveways for a total of $100.00 for the winter.
John says that his finances are good and that he'll chip in $90.00 (or, 90%).
Sarah says hers are okay and she'll chip in $10.00 (or, 10%).
Together John & Sarah tell Barry that he can pay $0 this year because he's having a tough time, but he can do more next year when he gets things turned around.
After the winter ends in March, Sam comes to the 3 neighbors and tells them that because they are such awesome customers and refer so many other people to his snow shoveling company (and generate so much biz for Sam), Sam wants to give them back $50.00.
Who should get the $50.00 and how much of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure?
______________________________________________
ANSWER:
If you said John & Sarah - Then you should be voting for McCain.
If you said Barry - Then you should be voting for Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE'S WHY (the Explanation):
If you said John & Sarah - If you said that John & Sarah should get it, or that John should get 90% ($45) and Sarah should get 10% ($5), then you've correctly allocated the discounted cost to the people who paid the bill, and in the proportion that they paid the bill. You also think about money and investment and work-ethic the way most Americans do.
You may have also recognized that this is a fair representation of what happens in our current tax system - that the top 1/3 pays 90% of all USA taxes, that the next (middle) 1/3 pays only 10% of all USA taxes, and that the bottom 1/3 of Americans pay absolutely $0 taxes.
[Who are the top 1/3? Anyone/household who makes apx. $60,000 or more. Hey, you didn't think you were in the top 1/3 did you? You thought all those OTHER RICH PEOPLE were footin' the bill & were gonna have their taxes go up, but nooooo, it's YOU! BTW, the bottom 1/2 is anyone/household making $30,000 or less.]
If you said that John & Sarah should get it, then you shouldn't be voting for Barry (Obama) on November 4, 2008, because Obama wants to give the $50 to Barry the neighbor.
If you don't believe that that's Obama's plan, then you don't know what the EIC is, and you don't know that it's already happening - that Obama just wants to make it BIGGER. You may say, how can that happen, "Barry the neighbor never put any money into the kitty?"
Well, there's 2 things you should know:
1. This is already happening!!! It's called the EIC (Earned Income Credit), and it results in people who already get a FULL REFUND of their taxes getting an ADDITIONAL CHECK! It's a fancy word and creative tax code rule that Congress came up with instead of calling it welfare.
2. Barry (the name he went by before he started running for offices) Obama wants to INCREASE the EIC so that those who already pay nothing will get a BIGGER check from the IRS & those who have a small tax responsibility will pay nothing and get a check back too.
If you said the neighbor Barry should get the $50, or part of the $50 - Then, you should vote for Obama on November 4, 2008. But, you should also realize that this is a Marxist economic system and that the only reason that no one will use that term is because it would scare off most Americans (as it should).
Under this system, do you think a John or Sarah would ever agree to pay the way for a Barry again?
Under this system, does Barry have any incentive to get his financial situation "turned around" next year so that he can contribute to the kitty?
WANT TO CHECK THE FACTS/SOURCES? HERE THEY ARE:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 - This has the clearest/simplest info.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls - scroll down on the XL spreadsheet to Line 170
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23248.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States
John says that his finances are good and that he'll chip in $90.00 (or, 90%).
Sarah says hers are okay and she'll chip in $10.00 (or, 10%).
Together John & Sarah tell Barry that he can pay $0 this year because he's having a tough time, but he can do more next year when he gets things turned around.
After the winter ends in March, Sam comes to the 3 neighbors and tells them that because they are such awesome customers and refer so many other people to his snow shoveling company (and generate so much biz for Sam), Sam wants to give them back $50.00.
Who should get the $50.00 and how much of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you sure?
______________________________________________
ANSWER:
If you said John & Sarah - Then you should be voting for McCain.
If you said Barry - Then you should be voting for Obama.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE'S WHY (the Explanation):
If you said John & Sarah - If you said that John & Sarah should get it, or that John should get 90% ($45) and Sarah should get 10% ($5), then you've correctly allocated the discounted cost to the people who paid the bill, and in the proportion that they paid the bill. You also think about money and investment and work-ethic the way most Americans do.
You may have also recognized that this is a fair representation of what happens in our current tax system - that the top 1/3 pays 90% of all USA taxes, that the next (middle) 1/3 pays only 10% of all USA taxes, and that the bottom 1/3 of Americans pay absolutely $0 taxes.
[Who are the top 1/3? Anyone/household who makes apx. $60,000 or more. Hey, you didn't think you were in the top 1/3 did you? You thought all those OTHER RICH PEOPLE were footin' the bill & were gonna have their taxes go up, but nooooo, it's YOU! BTW, the bottom 1/2 is anyone/household making $30,000 or less.]
If you said that John & Sarah should get it, then you shouldn't be voting for Barry (Obama) on November 4, 2008, because Obama wants to give the $50 to Barry the neighbor.
If you don't believe that that's Obama's plan, then you don't know what the EIC is, and you don't know that it's already happening - that Obama just wants to make it BIGGER. You may say, how can that happen, "Barry the neighbor never put any money into the kitty?"
Well, there's 2 things you should know:
1. This is already happening!!! It's called the EIC (Earned Income Credit), and it results in people who already get a FULL REFUND of their taxes getting an ADDITIONAL CHECK! It's a fancy word and creative tax code rule that Congress came up with instead of calling it welfare.
2. Barry (the name he went by before he started running for offices) Obama wants to INCREASE the EIC so that those who already pay nothing will get a BIGGER check from the IRS & those who have a small tax responsibility will pay nothing and get a check back too.
If you said the neighbor Barry should get the $50, or part of the $50 - Then, you should vote for Obama on November 4, 2008. But, you should also realize that this is a Marxist economic system and that the only reason that no one will use that term is because it would scare off most Americans (as it should).
Under this system, do you think a John or Sarah would ever agree to pay the way for a Barry again?
Under this system, does Barry have any incentive to get his financial situation "turned around" next year so that he can contribute to the kitty?
WANT TO CHECK THE FACTS/SOURCES? HERE THEY ARE:
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 - This has the clearest/simplest info.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls - scroll down on the XL spreadsheet to Line 170
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23248.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
