The Obama Nation
76OBAMANATION
President Obama seems like a nice fellow. He is surely an historic and accomplished figure. He is a good family man.
But what is the vision for the Obamanation? We have had a few years now to assess what the Obamanation meant by hope and change. I must confess I am troubled by much I have learned about his associates and his agenda for America. Particularly disturbing is his self-stated goal to "fundamentally transform America."
In 2001, Barack Obama said these words: "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."
What does this mean to the Obamanation? Redistribution of Wealth means the seizure of property, wealth and income from individuals who have earned it, so it may be transferred to others who have not. Classical Liberalism regards this as theft by the government. Who could be in favor of such a scheme?
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul." George Barnard Shaw
THE TIDES FOUNDATION
In the quote from Barack Obama above, who would this "coalition of powers" include?
We can start with The Tides Foundation, a group founded by George Soros to funnel money to radicals who wish to overthrow the American Way of life without a perceptible trail to its donors.
Among its stated aims are the "banning of firearms ownership; access to government-funded abortion-on-demand; and radical gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender advocacy."
GEORGE SOROS
The major contributor to The Tides Foundation—and nearly every other group determined to foist a Marxist revolution on the American citizenry—is George Soros and his Open Society Institute.
The Open Society Institute portrays America as a nation "rife with racism and economic injustice." It claims that it "seeks to radicalize minority youth; encourages acts of rebellion against America's alleged injustices; provides legal assistance to state and local governments seeking to restrict individual property rights."
OBAMA—ACORN: ACORN CORRUPTION AND ACORN FRAUD
One beneficiary of these funds from George Soros is ACORN, a group notorious for corruption and voter fraud. It has been busted for supporting teenage prostitution, tax fraud and bank fraud. ACORN states that it is "Opposed to the profit motive and capitalism in general; pushes for more government control over citizens and the economy; supports a government monopoly in healthcare; and an open door immigration policy."
Ironically, ACORN and its affiliates, all reliable cheerleaders for higher taxes, are longtime tax deadbeats. A search of public records found more than 200 federal, state, and local tax liens adding up to more than $3.7 million.
A 2003 study of ACORN by the Employment Policies Institute found the group paid a wage of $5.67 per hour, which was 'less than half the level demanded by many proposed living-wage ordinances that ACORN supports.'
Although it demands all workers be allowed to organize unions, ACORN doesn't like it when its own workers try to organize. It has tried to block its own employees from signing up with unions, and in 2003 the National Labor Relations Board determined it had unlawfully blocked its workers from organizing.
ACORN and its affiliates have engaged in massive campaigns of voter-registration fraud. Untold numbers of the registration forms that ACORN has submitted to election boards across the United States were fraudulent. The organization's get-out-the-vote activists have been implicated in schemes involving the falsification and destruction of registration forms, the forging of signatures, the registration of dead or non-existent people, and the registration of the same individuals multiple times.
ACORN was a key player in the chain of events and policies that led to the housing and banking crash of 2008. That crisis had its roots in the 1977 passage of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a federal law that outlawed "redlining" (the refusal of banks to lend money to borrowers located in areas known for their high default rates on loans). The CRA required banks to extend credit to undercapitalized, high-risk borrowers in low-income, mostly-minority areas.
In the early 1990s ACORN, thus empowered by the CRA, demanded that banks demonstrate their commitment to minority lending by drastically lowering their standards regarding down-payments and underwriting, and by making loans to nonwhites with bad credit histories.
Wade Rathke stepped down from his position as ACORN's chief organizer in 2008. Shortly thereafter, ACORN publicly acknowledged that Dale Rathke—Wade's brother—had embezzled nearly $5 million from ACORN and its affiliated groups in 1999 and 2000. ACORN further admitted that for eight years its executives had kept this information secret from almost all of their organization's board members and from law-enforcement authorities, while Dale Rathke remained on ACORN's payroll.
Barack Obama told an audience of ACORN workers and supporters last year: "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career."
SEIU UNION
ACORN is closely linked to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which gives millions of dollars to Democratic lawmakers and politicians who promote government expansion and higher taxes.
The SEIU union wishes to radically transform an American society that it deems rife with inequity. SEIU's mission is "to improve the lives of workers and their families and create a more just and humane society."
Classifying women and minorities as the most aggrieved victims of discrimination and maltreatment, SEIU notes that 56 percent of its members are women and 40 percent are "people of color." The SEIU Union has a vested interest in helping to elect Democratic leftists who will press to make government ever-larger, so that it can produce an ever-increasing number of union-dues-paying jobs for welfare workers, socialized medicine healthcare workers, Medicare nursing home workers and the like.
The SEIU advocates a taxpayer-funded, government-run program of socialized medicine. SEIU seeks to secure amnesty for illegal aliens, and favors policy reforms that will diminish or eliminate future restrictions on immigration. The SEIU naturally views such immigrants as a potentially plentiful source of future SEIU dues-paying members.
APOLLO ALLIANCE
All of these groups are involved with the Apollo Alliance, which helped craft the $787B Stimulus Package for the Obamanation. All of these groups also receive taxpayer funds toward its activities. All are patterned after the activist tactics detailed in the book by Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals." Often those tactics are subtle, featuring the quiet infiltration of political, educational, and financial infrastructures.
Then there is the New Black Panther Party, a group dedicated to black supremacy that President Obama's Attorney General has refused to prosecute after it intimidated voters in the last election. This organization is decidedly anti-Semitic and anti-capitalist.
BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY
I can add to this look at the ideas of the Obamanation the move by the White House to command the National Endowment of the Arts to produce propaganda for the Obamanation with taxpayer monies; the call by President Obama for mandatory community service for American students—which, of course, begins with indoctrination into Leftist value systems; and Barack Obama's chilling statement: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Barack Obama's version of Christianity is not Christianity at all. It is instead what is called Black Liberation Theology.
Black Liberation Theology is Marxist in nature and boasts that it will one day make "white men will tremble, curse, and go mad, because they will be drenched with the filth of their evil."
RULES FOR RADICALS BY SAUL ALINSKY
And then there is the disturbing fact that President Obama learned from—and taught— the subversive ideology expressed in Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.
Here are some quotes from the book by Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within."
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history, the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer."
"We are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power"
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means."
"Do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."
"Is this manipulation? Certainly!"
"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent."
"Nothing is sacred"
"The organizer detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality."
"The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems."
"The organizer must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; and fan the latent hostilities of many of the people."
I have previously published Hubs about:
How the Mortgage Crisis Caused the Worldwide Financial Meltdown
CommentsLoading...
Brilliant presentation of the facts and great writing! Thank you for getting this important information out!
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always count on the support of Paul." George Barnard Shaw
I'm going to remember this quote, although Shaw himself was a leftist and supported wealth redistribution.
This should give pause to anyone who considers supporting president Obama. An upright person doesn't employ the tactics of deception and manipulation in this way even for what they might belief to be a worthy cause. This is the thinking of the godless, who don't believe in doing what's right for its own sake!
The more poeple find out about the president and these subversive organizations,the better!
Texasbeta— I figured I would leave that task to you! :D
I am a card carrying member of the Heritage Foundation. What is your beef with them? I've met Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Both are very nice gentlemen, and true American patriots.
I attended one Tea Party rally just to see what all the buzz was about. I then reported on what I saw:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Orlando-Tea-Party
Thanks for visiting and commenting!
So when are you doing one on the Koch brothers, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Heritage Foundation, Center for American Prosperity, Freedomworks, and the Tea Party Express? Nothing about Ralph Reed, Rove, Cheney, Grover or even Abramoff? Nada?
Erickcb— I saw the other day that 95% of black people approve of the job he is doing, but only 31% of white people do. The latter is, of course, blamed on racism. But not the former. Obama did play the ignorant American. You have a clear eye for these things. It is a pleasure to hear your thoughtful insights. Thank you for visiting.
oh i love this! i know that many ignorant people voted for obama just because he is black. im black and i hate the dude. i hate him for his politics, but then i hate most politicians simply because they lie straight to your face, and then the electoral college gets their way. it makes me mad that i get called "less black" because i do not support obama. to those who tell me this, i ask, why they voted for him, what is he doing well, and has he stuck to his promises he made to us all? Then i get to laugh in their faces as they look at me with bewildered looks on their faces, like they have never seen a black man who ACTUALLY cares about who and what he is voting for. After i get my well deserved laugh, i tell those people to understand the politics or stay of the politics. Obama played the ignorant american, and its a shame to see that many dont even realize it.
gatorgrad2001— I like Fox News a lot better than the Communist News Network. Far right? I don't see that. I think some folks are so used to the liberal slant in the news—91% of MSM journalists say they vote for liberal candidates—that when we see fair and balanced reportage, it appears to be right wing. All is relative.
What I meant was this is like Fox News. It has the appearance of journalism when in fact it is far right propaganda with no attempt at objectivity.
gatorgrad2001— OK. I never claimed to be a Journalist. If I am in factual error, I will make corrections. Where are the errors?
gatorgrad2001— My use of the word "radical" here is meant in accordance with its meaning: a person or movement that wants revolutionary societal change.
gatorgrad2001— Could you be more specific? Can you point out a lie or a hateful sentence? I surely do not want to lie or be hateful, and I will make corrections if they are pointed out.
This is 100% OpEd and doesn't even come close to being journalism.
A comment about use of the word "radical" and others. Compared with the Neocons and Dubyah, EVERYTHING is to the left of that neofascist ideology. The neocons are radical right, so the word is a relative, not absolute one.
This is the most vile hateful garbage I have read. Propaganda and fear mongering, distortion, lies...
Disappearinghead--- I do understand that things look far different from across the pond. Europeans were under the absolute rule of Monarchs for centuries, so to them, what they have now looks like freedom. And relatively, it is. To Americans, born into freedom by our Founding Fathers, government power represents a loss of individual freedom. Which it true. The American and French Revolutions are often connected in the minds of people in a way that does not reflect reality. There was no call to "strangle the last nobleman with the guts of the last priest" over here. Far from it. The benevolent power of belief in God and Providence is at the center of the American Experience.
I disagree with your description of W and the War in Iraq. W was out to protect us from further attack, in particular by dirty bombs or biological means. Since Islam believes they will take over Europe without firing a shot you are not under such threat except the occasional foray to keep you in line.
Obama was elected by a curious assemblage of black voters--who would have voted for Louis Farrakhan given the chance solely because he is black--white liberals who have been taught to feel guilty about themselves, their forefathers, and to feel hatred toward their own nation; homosexuals; and the poor. In the case of the latter because as prominent socialist George Bernard Shaw wryly pointed out: "If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul."
The Right is opposed to Central Planning and the Nationalization of the nation's resources and economy. And the loss of freedom and liberty associated with totalitarianism. See George Orwell, who I think Americans appreciate far more than Europeans.
I totally understand the roots of the National Health Service in Britain coming on the heels of being ravaged by WWII. We don't have the same history here. The roots of our health care problems are the opposite; not lack of governmental involvement, but too much of it already. There is no question that the finest health care in the world was in the United States before the government got involved in the 1960s. It has gone downhill since then but is arguably still the best. As for the Brit's system, the writings of Theodore Dalrymple lead me to believe it is no utopia over there.
It is one thing for the church to lead the way with charity, it is quite another for a government to confiscate my earnings and give them to the recipient of its choosing--generally a form of patronage that ill affects the electoral system we have here. Redistribution has been tried from 1917-1989 in the USSR. Anybody who thinks this experiment turned out better than the US experience in Capitalism and Individual Responsibility, has not learned a thing from history. I will writing about this in detail soon.
The "ever increasing gap" is myth. The greatest such gap in American history was in 1917-1929---not today. Jesus taught for Christians to care for the poor--increasingly difficult to do when 50% of the wealth is confiscated by the government and eaten up by its mammoth bureaucracies, filled with waste, inefficiency, corruption, and fraud. Jesus never taught that Caesar should take half our wages and give it someone who refuses to work or educate themselves.
Gun control increases crime, not reduces it. The safest communities in America are those best armed. Fact not opinion.
James. I haven't the time to read all the comments above or your responses to all of them, but I'm always wary of the American Christian right. I'm from the UK and what we see is often an apparent 'paranoia' of those with left wing leanings.
After the war mongering Gerorge dubya who had an agenda to invade Iraq for no other reason than to bolster the American economy and ensure that the American super rich continued to support the right's causes, Obama appears to most of the world as an educated intelligent breath of fresh air.
I can't comment to any credibility on American politics, but at the same time I cannot see why the right is so opposed to many of the social changes that Obama is trying to bring about.
What's wrong with a state funded health care system for all free at the point of need. We've had a National Health Service in the UK since 1948 and it works. We all pay 11% tax to fund it and we all get free access to a local doctor or open heart surgery, anything we need. And yes, our right wing governments support it too as a national health service is not about a right or left political viewpoint, but about providing free health care to all irrespective of one's ability to pay. It's no coincidence that much of Europe also have state funded health care systems. To us, America seems rather backward in this regard.
Why does the right have isues with gun control? Personnal firearms are strictly under government control in Europe, Australia and Canada, yet we don't see this as government intrusion into our rights, but does make our lives somewhat safer.
Redistribution of wealth is not some underhand evil left wing plot either. Just look at the early church, the policy was a core concept. No one is suggesting that the honest businessman should not make a profit, or that the working should continue to support those who do not want to. However an ever increasing gap between the very wealthy and the poorest only breeds social unrest and injustice. Jesus was fundamental in His teachings on support of the poor in society. If the rich or the church will not step up to this challenge then it will be left to the government of the day to redistribute wealth by changes in taxation.
Perhaps what upsets the Christian right is that America can no longer aford to be the world's superpower. The world is changing, the economies are moving East and America has lost much of it's dominance. Empires come and go. The Roman Empire collapased, the British Empire - the largets the world has ever seen has passed, so now it is the turn of America. The decline of America does not herald the end times, but is only yet another country that has had its time. I don't think that that is too bad a thing.
Wealthmadehealthy--- Thank you. Thank you very much!
The truth shall be heard.....Excellent hub...just excellent!
prettydarkhorse— Thank you, Maita. I am having a much better day today. I have been blessed!
you put them all together very nicely, James, we all know the facts and for your effort here and understanding, have a good day and hope again everydya is better for you, maita
ffrankbb— Of course, I agree that the Left is not monolithic. Well armed and a good shot! I like it. The Bill of Rights we can agree is a wonderful document. So, we have some fine common ground. Your last paragraph does have merit. Thank you for these fine comments.
James A Watkins, please. Anti-American American like me? Name calling, and the resulting argument ad hominum will get you nowhere. Neither will your over generalization about "The Left" wanting to disarm America.
"The Left" is not a monolithic bloc marching to one tune. This Leftie is well armed and perfectly capable of putting a shot on target at ranges up to 200 yards.
This Leftie understands that the Bill of Rights was codified to exemplify the beliefs of the writers that the individual citizen is the foundation of the republic. For example.
I am not praising Saudi and other texts that teach the Protocols of Zion. I am merely pointing out that the US has a great knack for creating our own problems in international politics. Our presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan has created untold thousands of jihadists bent on the destruction of the US. Go figure.
urimidden— WOW! I had not heard of any of these allegations. Lord have mercy. I will have to investigate. Thank you for these leads. I am shocked.
Obama is nowhere near a "good family man". In 1999, at the height of his senatorial career - with a wife and two kids at home - he was in a limousine outside a prominent club in Chicago smoking crack with Larry Sinclaire while Sinclaire performed fellatio on him. Then two days later at Sinclaires hotel room in Gurney Ill.
This is a man who was passing laws designed to put people in prison for smoking crack while he was using it himself.
As well, in November of 2007 four black choirboys (Nate Spencer, Larry Bland, Donald Young and another unidentifiable to me) from Jeremiah Wrights church, which Obama attended for nearly 20 years, were murdered execution style with gunshots to the backs of their heads because they were allegedly engaging in sexual relations with Obama.
Even the Chicago police confirmed that the men were murdered because they knew something about Obama.
The man is a pig in a prom dress, and as well, he is holding two positions of office as President of the United States while simultaneously chairing the United Nations Security Council. This is in flagrant violation of the United States Constitution which he gave an oath to uphold and defend. The man is the traitor all truly informed citizens knew he was and he must be impeached.
The man truly intends to assist those who were in control of the Bush administration with pounding the last nail in the coffin they desire to place this entire nation in.
Their nefarious and traitorous agenda must be curtailed, and it will only be accomplished by an iformed and defiant public...educate yourself and anyone else you can find. A mere 30% of this naion's citizens will stop him dead in his tracks, along with Geithner, Gates, Clinton, Brezinsky (spelling?), Volkner, Bernanke and the rest of his criminal gang.
ffrankbb— Hate mongering? Do you see any hate expressed on this page? If so, please specify which sentence and I will delete it. I don't hate anybody. I love everybody. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everybody's political views or aims for our society and nation.
The People of Iran do not hate America. On the contrary, the majority of them wish their country was more like ours. But they can't escape the rule of the Ayatollahs. Yet. I am fully aware of the CIA involvement in Iran 55 years ago. The real problem with Iran, though, is that we had Jimmy Carter in the Presidency at the time the Ayatollahs made their move—no coincidence. This is exactly the problem with Lefties. They think people around the world will respect weakness and singing Kumbaya around the campfire. Evil people only respect power. Just as the Left wants to disarm Americans but any burglar will tell you they avoid like the plague any house they suspect is armed. Duh.
I am not aware that Osama has mentioned Iran and the Shah. I know he has preached at length about wanting Spain back, that was lost in 1492; and about the humiliation the Muslims suffered at the gates of Vienna at the hands of the Polish Calvary in 1683 on September 11th. I've heard him express anger at Americans being present in Saudi Arabia (invited we are) and about the State of Israel existing.
I do not think most of the world sees us as a bully. I think anti—American Americans like you do. Most of the world knows that the United States has defended hundreds of millions of defenseless people; fed the hungry; dispensed medicine to the sick; clothed the naked; built houses, schools and dug wells where there were none all around the world. And been the first in to nearly every disaster around the world for 100 years.
In the Middle Eastern Madrassahs they also teach the the "Protocols of Zion" are factual and that Jews kidnap babies to drink their blood. So, it is the odd American who praises their textbooks.
James, you did a lot of name calling and hate mongering up there but for now let's just focus on this little jewell: "the peaceniks who think if they could just sit down and talk to Osama he'd leave us alone"
First of all, OBL is an ass and we really should have his head on a platter. Having said that, yes, I said it and you can quote me, let me ask you:
How many Americans know why so many people in Near and Middle Eastern countries hate the US? How many know that we installed both the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein through CIA funded hijinks back in the day? Iran had just elected a popular centrist-leftist president, the CIA was afraid he would be too cozy with the Russians and funded the opposition, supplied them with material, weapons, etc., and encouraged the overthrow of the elected government to install their picked strongman The Shah. Just how friendly would you be to Iran if Iranian Intelligence had fostered violent revolution in the US that led to the overthrow of the electoral government and installation of a right-wing Iranian sympathizer fascist with absolute control of the government?
Not only is this common knowledge in Iran, it is taught in schools throughout the Muslim world, as a normal part of World History. We've done similar things in Iraq, Chile, and tried it, with extreme embarrassment, in Cuba. Our own history texts ignore or gloss over these events, but much of the rest of the world sees the US as a bully. Go figure.
Best CD Rates— I agree with you that the world is solidly satisfied with President Obama. There is the historic side of his race, which makes many Americans and peoples of the world especially pleased. But his conciliatory attitude and leveling down of America to other countries surely contributes to this satisfaction. I'm glad you approve. Thank you for reading and commenting.
I think the whole world is appreciating US for choosing a black president. However, in my opinion this is not about black or white; people of the nation has chosen a right person to be there president. This is nothing related to racism.
Veritas— Thanks for that link to that fine article. That does give one pause, doesn't it. I appreciate you tuning in.
Hxprof— I'm going to take some time and study those Scriptures you gave me tomorrow. I have been in a writing groove and when I get in the zone I take advantage of it to express myself. I can feel myself getting tired, winding down. One more Hub tonight and I'm going to take some time off to read and get refreshed for the next round. And take care of my real world for a few days.
I, of course, agree with every word you said. Thanks!
Wow, this is very similar to what I've read on many other sites. Could Barack Obama rise to the throne of the Antichrist in the way the Bible says one man will - look at this article, it's pretty convincing http://tinyurl.com/ykxycy9
God is very patient, it's part of His nature. What we know though are these things: 1) Eventually His patience runs out. 2)Israel was founded, so "summer is near". 3) Judgement begins with the church. 4) America has as you say turned its back on God. But why? His people are to be the salt of the earth. Wouldn't America and the world be in better shape if Christians were the salt we're supposed to be? 5)Most Christians believe that once we're saved there's nothing else to be done-God performs His sanctification upon us day by day until we reach maturity. That's a lie, and it has made the church lukewarm.
So much more, but this isn't the place for it.
Hxprof— I have never heard anything like it, either. But I do think they will be thrown out of Congress next year—resoundingly. Unless . . . they cancel the elections.
I pray Obama does well.
Too late?
God is very patient. He sure has blessed this nation. Now we have turned our backs on Him. Not good.
James, the bottom line as I see it is this: I've never before heard the kind of horsepuckey that is coming out of the mouths of the clowns that are in Washington now. I say clowns, but this is one dangerous pack. I don't believe they will be stopped during the next election cycle-I believe this will go on.
I pray daily for Obama because God tells His people to pray for the government, regardless of what that government is like. This doesn't mean America will reverse course, it's too late for that.
There comes a day when God will act so that all will know the difference between those who serve Him and those who don't. When? I don't know. I do know it's not far away.
rkhyclak— Join the club. Many of us are truly concerned about the creeping governmental control of our lives with the inevitable corresponding loss of Liberty. Those who are crowding in to the government teet; the government hog trough—love the latest developments. Thank you for your wise words.
M S Riefer— The only Americans cheering are those who believe they will benefit from this redistribution. Obviously. Thank you for your poignant comments.
H P Roychoudhury— I agree with you 100%. His policies and his worldview should be our concern here. Thank you for adding the voice of reason to this page.
Just stumbled upon your hub. I very much enjoyed it, however, it's quite disturbing seeing it all put together as we only hear about 1 or the other at a given time. I'll most likely catch a lot of flack for this, but I truly fear for the future of this country given the command it is under. God save America, cuz she sure needs it.
I love how the left things "redistribution of wealth" is something to cheer about. Let's hear it for Robin Hood!
Redistribution of wealth is part of the evil of Communism. Why are capitalist Americans cheering????
It is better to think of the performance of Obama forgetting the black or white character which is not a befitting topic in the 21st century to be talked about.
christalluna1124— I respect you opinion as well. I sincerely hope he works for the good of America and the American Way. The organizations he chooses to align himself with gives me doubts. Thank you for visiting and commenting. Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!
while I respect your opinion, that is one of the great things in America, we are all entitled to have our own. I have the utmost respect for our president. It seems he is being blamed for everything from the economy to global warming. I think he inherited most of the mess he is now left to straighten out and he hasn't been on the job that long. I hope that with Gods guidance he will be able to bring us out of the mess we are in. I think we should at least give him a chance.
Warmest regards, christal
jjmyles— Thank you very much for the visit. I appreciate your compliments and that link you provided does ask an important question. We are on the road to Central Planning. Nationalize banks, manufacturing, insurance industry, medical industry, government set prices and wages, we're all about you peasants!—sounds like Lenin to me. I thought this experiment failed already in the USSR.
Let's see, SEIU boss Stern has been to the White House 22 times—more than any other person—and what does he say? "We have a chance to correct a 230 year old mistake." Meaning, the United States of America. Nothing there to see, just keep moving. :)
Jeff May— That may be one of the reasons. But I think it has more to with black voters rooted for their own (just as they naturally did for say Joe Louis); The indoctrination of white children in public schools of "white guilt" over the last 30 years who can now vote; the Hispanics, sensing that Obama will let all their relatives come to live here off the public dole; the homos who can see Obama declaring their affections to be just as good as any; the Atheists seeing him as the final nail in the coffin of Christianity in America; the socialists ready to strangle the rich with the guts of the evangelicals; the peaceniks who think if they could just sit down and talk to Osama he'd leave us alone; the baby killers seeing a chance to get taxpayer funds for unfettered abortion of even 12 year olds behind their parents backs; the Internationalists who want America brought into a New World Order and cut down to size; the unions, seeing their ideology growing unpopular seeing a chance to force the unionization of all Americans ("Unionism is the first step to Communism") care to name who that quote is from?; the shiftless seeing a chance for a president who will declare they have a "right" to everything anybody else has without any effort on their part. Did I miss anybody?
I agree that Obama Is quite adept at putting Sal Alinski's
Teachings into practice. Grabbing power is one of the main precepts taught by Alinski and the "Heath care reform" is a huge grab for power. That is why they are trying to push it through before the people can find out exactly what is included in the bill and how it violates our constitution.
Excellent hub James, thanks for doing the research and presenting it so well.
No, I believe in free markets. However, there needs to be a balance between effective government regulation and ethical free markets. Clearly, we are out of balance. Much of the electorate thought so as well. That's one of the reasons Obama won.
Jeff May— Do you think perhaps wages should be central planned by the government? Or should we simply take all the income in the United States and make sure everyone makes the same wage each week? Total income of all Americans is about $7.5T and there are what, 300 million of them? That would be $25,000 for each man, woman and child, right?
I suppose that would be "Social Justice."
To Bute -- Thanks for the link to "Rage Grows in America: Anti?Government Conspiracies"
According to the Wall Street Journal, "The deepest downturn in the U.S. economy since the Great Depression may finally (note the words 'may' and 'finally') shrink the gap between the very best-off Americans and everyone else.
If so, it won't be by lifting up the bottom. It will be by pulling down the top. (I'm sure the Wall Street Journal will logically argue this point, however as an adjunct college instructor, I can't afford to subscribe to find out.)
Over the past 30 years, chief executives, Wall Street bankers and traders, law-firm partners and such amassed ever-greater incomes, while the incomes of factory workers, teachers, office managers and others in the middle grew much more slowly. In 2007, the top 1% of U.S. families accounted for 23.5% of all personal income in the U.S., according to economists ...” (This seems to acknowledge my point. However, I would amend “grew much more slowly” to “flat-lined or decreased” when factoring in rising health care costs. At least this has been my wife’s experience.)
The MindlessBrute— Well, well. What a great surprise! My friend, I am very happy to see you here. It has been awhile. Cheerio indeed. I'll check out those links. Thank you for them. Now, let's see some new Hubs from you. :D
Watching the watchers who are watching the blood dimmed tide as it begins to flood the streets.The violence that erupted in south Florida over the weekend between amnesty protestors/counter protestors in the street,leaves me to believe that something wicked this way comes;or not,God has nothing to do with this,hope that the midlle ground can be found in the third dimension and not only in the digital one,cheerio
Jeff May— No. I'm not calling you a lefty. I wouldn't do THAT to ya. :D
No, Jeff, I don't see as intractable at all. You seem reasonable enough.
You are right, the statistics run a few years behind on massive studies like that. I am not aware of a detailed study more up-to-date. But the same claim of "the rich getting richer" and "the income gap widening" were being made then and for decades prior. The income gap was the greatest in America from 1916-1929. According to the Wall Street Journal the gap is shrinking.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125254156520197777
OK. What do you consider the middle ground? How about this.
:) You're calling me a lefty? You seem frustrated by what you might see as my intractability, but I’m sure that true lefties would be just as frustrated by your views.
I said "right-wing" not "conservative" sources.
Unless I'm looking in the wrong place (you're link is broken so I had to google on my own), the statistics only go to 2004. The income gap started around 1983 and in the past five years has gotten dramatically bigger. Your views seem rooted in a bygone political reality.
All I'm saying is that, if I or anybody else chose to do so, we could take the same information and make a logical argument bashing conservatives as paranoid, whacked-out, nut-jobs who find something "Marxist" or "Socialist" about nearly everything this current administration in tries to accomplish.
Let's move to the middle ground.
(I hope your baby thrives.)
Jeff May— Man, I feel like I've birthed a baby. OK.
Of course, most of these citations are from conservative web sites. I would not expect moveon.org to run a headline: OBAMA WANTS GESTAPO TO POLICE AMERICANS
The 2001 quote is from a radio interview in which (you can hear it on the internet) they are discussing what can be done for minority communities. The answer is not reduce the 78% illegitimacy, stop saying that reading books is acting "white", have parents help kids with their schoolwork, have kids learn a craft or trade. The answer is as given: the Supreme Court and the Great Society did not go far enough—they only granted equal opportunity. What needed to be done is redistribution of wealth—right out of Marxism—and Obama was going to work toward this goal through "power" accumulated by Community Organizations.
And the income gap is about the same today as it was in 1989:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers
It is not OK for anybody to steal, no.
I'm not paranoid. ;) FALSE CLAIM!? FALSE CLAIM!? That's what truly gets me about lefties. They argue with videotaped speeches of themselves. He said what he said. What did he say?
In Barack Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech calling America to national service, Obama proposed “a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military."
Let's not get confused. He also wants mandatory volunteering for every American who gets a student loan to go to college. That is nearly as sinister. But let's not confuse the two. They are unrelated.
The former: "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as our military" is paramilitary. What is just as strong as our military? Nothing on earth, that's what. You think he meant a bunch of college kids rebuilding houses in the inner city would be as strong, as powerful as our military??? It's a SECURITY FORCE in his own words.
The mandatory volunteering—don't you see a language problem there? Mandatory volunteering? Is to have all college freshmen work in community organizing for ACORN and groups like them fora year or two—free labor for the most subversive Marxist organizations in America: MANDATORY! The volunteering starts with a training course every volunteer most pass to assure they all have right thoughts on Anti-Americanism, redistribution, gay rights, identity politics, abortion, —reeducation on a level not attempting since MAO.
I am not saying Obama is a terrorist. You are making these assertions as if I am. I am not.
Thanks for coming back and leaving your thoughts.
Okay, you do make some relevant observations and provide all sorts of citations (mainly from right wing sources). However, your lengthy response highlights my point about logic. (I don’t addresses every one of your responses to my response and don’t expect a precise response to this response to your responses.)
The 2001 Obama quote apparently came from professorial, philosophical musing on history. But I can easily see how it might be disturbing. No one wants our government stealing from us and giving to others.
Is it okay for corporate thieves to steal? A recent TIME magazine article displayed a graph showing how the gap between rich and poor has expanded exponentially. No wonder there is a hue and cry for change... for storming the Bastille. (As you imply, you are a master at Google, therefore, I don’t need to provide a bunch of citations.)
I believe in capitalism, that honest businessmen should be able to earn their living. And I agree that loafers looking for government handouts are a drain and should meet with our disdain. Having said that, however, I do not in any way feel threatened by Obama. (His addresses to schoolchildren, despite the absurd protest to it, clearly promulgated individual responsibly.)
It seems a bit of a leap to link "coalition of powers" to the Tides Foundation. Even so, and even if the group funnels money to “radical” causes. I’m sure a little search will find the same sort of radical nonsense from right-wing extremists. Let’s try being centrist, and not repeat and spew forth extremism. (How about passing a “public option” and stop calling it a total government takeover of your health care?) Let’s put George Soros and Rupert Murdoch in a room together for a mind meld.
As for the 21-second Obama sound bite, "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." You could view that as a socialist government totalitarian secrete police (just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean someone isn’t following you), or you could do some fact checking on Google and find, “This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_pla
“Obama did everything Alinsky prescribed” and he knew Bill Ayers too, therefore he is a terrorist, and he is going to maliciously destroy our country. Hmmm, he is the devil too? God is a cheerio.
Jeff May— Whew! That's a lot of work. I apologize that I didn't have footnotes. These quotes are so common, and my readers so adept at Google, I don't use attributions. I'm not submitting this to the Stanford Review or USA Today—it's just a Hub.
Obama is clearly for redistribution, which can be defined as legal theft from one person to give assets or income to another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23a
can provide the final quote, also available on 9959 other sites
after you read all of these, come back and we'll talk about it
the 10th quote can be found on 2,430,000 web sites and here:
excuse me that last one was the 8th quote and here is the 7th
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.h
also available on millions of other sites
9960 web sites have the 6th alinsky quote including
the 5th alinsky quote can be found here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_radi
and on 794,999 other web sites
the 4th alinsky quote is rare—only featured on 998 web sites including this one:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53055
Here you may read the 3rd alinsky quote, or on 1,459,999 other web sites.
the 2nd alinsky quote can be read on 21,900 web sites. In case you can't find it:
Obama's statement "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
the quote from the preacher who married and who listened to for ten years but never heard anything he said can be found on 24,700 web sites including
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/28/acorn/
On this link—along with 587 others—one can read this description of Acorn
Obama said: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career.”
the description of the aims of George Soros can be found at:
The quote by the Tides Foundation can be found on 765 web sites. The first place I see it is:
The quote from George Bernard Shaw can be found thousands of places. for instance:
jeff may— The second longer quote from Obama in 2001 can be found on thousands of web sites. The first that came up on Google is U.S. News and World Report
Jeff May— I have changed my first quote from "radically" to "fundamentally." I'm not saying he hasn't used radically, but I don't have all day to hunt down quotes and this one is easy to find. Words have meanings. Fundamentally means:
a. Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
b. Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central
c. Of great significance or entailing major change
SOURCE: Free Dictionary . com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqN4NIEtOY
Transform means: To change the nature, function, or condition
While I am always willing to listen to an opposing point of view, I take all views with a healthy dose of skepticism. For example, your quotes have no citations. Where did they come from? How can I read them in context? By taking parts and using logic, you can argue almost anything. Throw in lots of facts with lots of exaggerated "facts" and add in a few lies and you get logic like: God is good, cheerios are good, therefore God is a cheerio. Maybe that's true, maybe not.
According to snopes.com, Obama said, "We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family.
What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things — fair distribution and robust economic growth — are mutually exclusive."
Can I conclude then that Obama is not for redistribution, but fair distribution?
A last observation... your comments here seem as if you watch a lot of Fox News. So, as a writer, you understand that controversy sells. People watch fights. Glen Beck recently suggested that because Obama went to Copenhagen and Copenhagen chewing tobacco causes cancer, that Obama is as bad for you as cancer. Cheerios are good.
MHilbert— Thank you. Welcome to HubPages. I see you are a librarian. I think that would be a fascinating line of work. I have about 1000 non-fiction titles on the wall behind me. So, I like books. :)
I agree with you about the government taking control of industries. It's like Central Planning all over again. I thought those ideas went away with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
I also see trouble ahead for the Democratic Party. People are over this whole "make history" thing. There is a lot of buyer's remorse.
Thanks for visiting and leaving your fine comments.
Very informative blog. Aside from the many unaccountable czars and Acorn, it is disturbing how in such a short amount of time the government has taken control of the industries in the U.S one by one (banking, automobile, health), and Congress just completely fails to realize that at least half the country is against this. I honestly think they will pay for it in the next election. I didn't vote for Obama, but after he was elected was willing to give him a chance. That lasted like a week.
thegecko— Yes. I suppose it is. ;)
The rest of the world? That's in the hands of the Gods =D
ffrankbb— Umm . . . you are saying you have better statistics than the Federal Reserve? I would like to see those. I wasn't trying to prove anything other than many of the wealthiest people in this country are celebrities and I don't hear any complaints about their wealth, probably because most of them are liberals and it may not be nice to criticize one's own.
You are dead on that small business—an area of which I am well acquainted—is taking it on the chin. A big reason for this is over-regulation. The big corporations favor Democrats because they know the little guy can't keep up with all the regulatory bulletins from the EPA, EEOC, NLRB, OSHA, et al.
I agree with you that charges from financial institutions are way out of hand and need to be curtailed. That is an excellent point that I forgot to acknowledge earlier.
Thank you for your fine comments. Your heart is surely in the right place.
Please. Household income in the US has been flat to declining for average workers and increasing for the top earners for over 20 years.
Your Tiger, Oprah, Spielberg argument is a classic example of using the exception to prove the rule when in fact the exceptions are just that.
The US used to have a very high success rate for start up businesses. No more. In fact the US has a smaller percentage of small, start-up and family owned businesses than any European country, Japan or China. The US also has the highest failure rate of start-ups and small businesses amongst the countries listed.
A significant part of the movement of wealth away from working and middle class families to the richest is the direct result of the repeal of Steagall - Glass and the subsequent hikes in interest rates and charges, hidden fees, and various financing charges throughout the financial industry. This can hardly be call "earnings."
It is a squeeze upon those who can least afford it, draining cash from those who actually work for a living creating real wealth - manufacturing, mining, agriculture - and putting it in the hands of those who only use their money and influence to create a legislative effort that puts cash in their pockets for free.
thegecko— Thank you for your response. I have enjoyed our conversation. Now that we've solved the problems of the United States, what are we going to do about the rest of the world?
A national sales tax would be an interesting experiement. I would support it as long as taxes on necessities were kept low and taxes on luxuries high.
Even by your stats, sounds like too many people are falling down.
I will add that the peak of wealth disparity in the history of the United States was 1916 to 1929. We are not close to those levels.
thegecko— In studies of income mobility, less than 3% of Americans are stuck in the bottom 20% of income. We know who they are. The girl who has four kids by four daddies, none of which she married, some of whom she may not be sure which man it is or know their names; who dropped out of school in the 10th grade, never learned a thing, can hardly read, can't multiply; has no ambition for anything except a government check and some Cheetos. The other 97% are temporarily in the bottom quintile—kids with entry level jobs; housewives and students who work part-time; seniors (who may have money or assets besides their paychecks).
Of the top 20% only 35% are still there after ten years. 65% have dropped down to make room for others; 2/3 of those dropped to the middle of the pack of worse. The vast majority of the top 1% are gone within 10 years.
The notion of a fixed economic class is a mirage fixated on by Liberals. I spent years at the bottom. I was a musician—by choice—and in that bottom quintile for a decade. I have no income now. I was in the top quintile one year ago today. Because I owned my own business, I do not qualify for unemployment. When my business of 14 years with 150 employees went under in February, I lost all my funds. That's the breaks.
I would be in favor of a national sales tax. No more IRS, no more loopholes for the rich, no more billions spent to prepare tax returns, no more sense in hiding money off shore, saving encouraged, the states are set up to collect it, they are experts at it. I believe this would be a real boon to our economy.
I agree with your point about the inheritance tax. Many family farms have been lost forever because of this.
I only mentioned entertainers and athletes because I hear constant bellyaching that some guy running a Fortune 500 company is making $15M a year but the same people utter nary a peep about AROD making $28M a year; Oprah making $80M a year; hell, Will Ferrell made $43M last year. This anti-CEO thing is a Liberal battle cry that is not well thought through. If CEO pay is too high, go be the CEO! You aren't able? Well, that's why she is the CEO and you ain't.
Whose fault is it if some numbnuts doesn't pay attention in school, drops out, never learns any skills, doesn't use the library, and then whines about how unfair "the Man" is?
America had much more solidarity before multi-culturalism and anti-Americanism permeated our schools through the radical leftist teacher's union. They never met a serial killer who wasn't misunderstood and mistreated by society.
You hit on the facts about the incredible waste in our government. The bigger it gets the more it wastes. By all means, let's make it huge and in charge of everything.
Thanks for your great commentary.
An overwhelming majority of the wealth and money exists at the top, with the rich. It only makes sense to tax them at a higher percent if the government needs more money because taxing the poor more brings in little revenue and could be detrimental to their livelihood. As for the middle class, it can put a dent in their pockets too, where as the rich won't feel the pinch as much. People should be aware though that the poor get a lot of their taxes back, especially if they earn a very low income. Also, a huge chunk of that money goes into social security and medicare, which someday will support the tax payer to an extent (if those two programs don’t collapse in the near future).
And so, we have a tax system that increases in percent the more income one makes. This is actually fair compared to an equal percentage for each income bracket, in so much as how it affects the socioeconomic well being of the tax payer. The tax code also allows for a lot of deductions, especially when you start factoring in charity, property, business, etc. and these deductions work in the rich's favor.
Now, there are some ridiculous taxes for sure aimed at the wealthy, most notably the estate tax and the gift tax. In the long run, these taxes really hurt those with less money as well. Middle class families have to sell their recently deceased parents' homes because they cannot afford to pay the inheritance tax on the house's current value. Bogus. Why should someone have to give 40% of their inheritance to the government when their grandfather dies?
In California, we have property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, taxes on gasoline, we even have a recycling tax. Come down here and pick up an HDTV and pay 50 bucks extra because it's made out of plastic! That's just going too far. It's already more expensive to live here and the income increase does not account for the increase in the cost of living. But that's the price I am willing to pay, I love San Diego too much :)
In regards to celebrities, Tiger Woods isn’t directly making money off of anyone, it’s all coming from commercials and the tournament winnings. You really need to target Wheaties and Buick if you want to burn a hole in his pocket. Same goes for professional athletes. Actors , film makers, and musicians, that’s another story. But I think the Internet has already started to level the playing field for these guys. People are fed up paying over inflated prices for DVDs and CDs, so they’re downloading them for free, or at the very least, streaming them. Movie theatre attendance is down too, you can tell by the huge price increases in concessions and tickets. Don’t be fooled by the box office numbers, ticket prices are 3 times as much as they were 20 years ago, and the population has grown greatly since then.
Now, people should not be disillusioned by focusing on the entertainment industry. When it comes to necessities, like electricity, water, food, gas, people have less power than economists would lead one to believe. Even if people reduce their consumption, they still have to pay something for these services and commodities, which gives these industries a huge leverage in pricing.
Going back to jobs, yes, people can educate themselves, people can learn new skills, people can try to move up the ranks. But how many do? How many remain at the bottom? Many of the average high school drop at rates hang around 50%. In California, only about 30% of graduates even go to college. Of those, almost a majority drop out, and only about 25% of people who do finish use their degree in a field it was intended for. Way more people are living in the bottom tier of society. Businesses can easily manipulate the market in regards to the poor, because when one is poor, any money is better than no money, and minimum wage gets most people nowhere.
You can argue that well, if people did not have families etc, minimum wage would actually be okay. Both parents can work after all. People can work two jobs. But that leaves children with a parentless household and creates many of the problems inherent in the lower classes today.
This is a matter of personal responsibility and accountability. You can easily map out a plan to survive this situation and make a better life for oneself. The reality is though that growing up in these circumstances, many people give up, many people develop resentful attitudes, many people do not develop a strong sense of will and self worth. It’s a complex social and cultural dilemma, poisoning the country. Welfare and public education are aimed at fixing the problems, but they’re huge failures in that regard. People could rise up as James suggested, but most will not because they’re stuck, mentally, physically, economically, at the bottom. This is where radical social change needs to happen.
But it won’t… Americans are too individualistic, America is too diverse and divided, lacking a true sense of solidarity. History also suggest otherwise. Most countries host social stratification with a privileged few at the top, and a majority of the masses at the bottom. It’s not inevitable, but I don’t see it changing in our country. It might change for a few because yes, the mobility exists, but it won’t change for the majority. Studies show it’s actually working in the other direction, with less being in the top tier, and more falling into the bottom.
What does that say about the future of our country - about the social and cultural fabric of America? The ramifications are great. That’s why there is pressure for the government to step in, to try and fix some of these problems. I don’t think it will be enough.
Now, I too believe in playing fair and though I think the rich should be obligated to cash over more in taxes, I don’t think that money should go to waste. That’s the real issue, the government wastes money, and the problems it faces also makes it difficult for the money spent to really cause an impact, to really provide a solution. As I stated before, the real change needs to come from within, from the people. We need to change and when we do the government will be in a better position to help the process. But right now, I feel as though the people and government don’t really want to fix the deep rooted problems. They just like the status quo and are working on keeping that in place (bailouts).
Lindagoffigan— I had read your article about Forbes before if it the same one you published 4 months ago. If you have a newer one please provide the link and I'll be pleased to read it.
lindagoffigan— I apologize for the delayed response. I have had a hectic few days. OK. I probably shouldn't have used those terms. I thought it might make y'all feel comfortable since those terms are—by all accounts—used in the present White House routinely and far worse words, too. Rahm Emmanuel is well known to punctuate his sentences with the F Bomb. Since you seem offended by me following the lead of my President, I am sorry.
ffrankbb— Among the most wealthy Americans are Tiger Woods, Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg. Are you saying they have ripped away money from the poor and funneled it to themselves? You can limit their wealth by not watching their TV show, movie or golf tournament.
You claim we have been redistributing wealth the wealthy? I think that is called earnings. And the income gap is about the same today as it was in 1989:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/papers
The deal is this, invent a frisbee, or microwave, or Jiffy Pop, or Windows, or whatever and you'll be rich. The carrot of riches upon success is what has made America a wealthy nation, what set us apart, standard of living wise. It made all Americans better off. Some far better than others yes. But when you level out the rewards, incentive goes down, people get lazy, the economy stagnates, it is bad for everybody. See the USSR 1917-1989 for proof.
ffrankbb— Soaking the rich does not cause wealth to flee the country? You could have fooled me. In a global economy with many tax havens, I believe it is well proven by now that it does. I might suggest the book "The Fair Tax" which though it is not my philosophy does provide a real education as to why soaking the rich never pays off.
The last "soak the rich scheme" by the Clintons was a luxury tax that ruined the entire yacht building industry in America. Check it out and you'll see that what I say is true.
What wrecks the economy is paying sloths who produce absolutely nothing toward the Commonweal.
thegecko— I bookmarked those links but I haven't read them yet. When I do, I'll add another comment here. Thanks for providing them for me.
You are in California? Oh Lord: you are in trouble. I hear your state government has a plan to snatch your earnings from your paychecks out there.
Not showing up for jury duty irks me.
The rest of your comments are level-headed and sensible. Thanks for making them here.
Thegecko: If James A Watson can use such uneducational terms in the debate such as hs and wtf; I shall borrow one line from your response that I liked more than the article
actually and here it is: Many of the president’s advisors and staff come from the Clinton administration
Now back to the subjective nature of relationships where everyone surprisingly has kept a clean mouth on such a scruptulous subject. James A. Watson, no need for you to read the Forbe magazine article and I appreciate being labelled, an esteemed hubber but then things sort of went down hill with the terminology. Thegecko, thank you for the bailout, I needed it.
J. A. W. you also asked who do I know who has been directly affected by Patriot. Me. and every other American who has used an airport recently. Every taxpayer seeing hard earned dollars going to misguided NSA and CIA projects. Chicago lost it's Olympic bid partly because of the hassles of traveling in and out of the US. There's billions of dollars that won't be coming here anytime soon, and thousands of jobs lost as a result.
Your point about education expenditures vs. outcomes is well taken. The same situation is true in health care - the US spends twice, per capita, what the next country spends, yet is at the bottom in life expectancy, infantile death, death below age 5, and several other measures. Does lifestyle play a large part? Certainly. Nevertheless, the way in which we direct health expenditures is antagonistic to a realistic improvement in health outcomes.
In education, misdirection of funds is also a big problem, but so is funding. Every district in my state is seeing huge cuts in education funding. We are simply not walking the talk that our kids are our future. Singapore, for Gods' sake, has almost 100% in home internet access for education.
rebekahELLE, thank you for the compliment
James A. Watkins, you misunderstand me. Soaking the rich, as you put it, does not force wealth to flee the country. Lowering income taxes on the wealthy reduces tax revenue, encourages boards of directors to raise salaries and bonuses.
The legislative repeal of Steagall - Glass (which kept interest rates and other forms of usury in check) ripped wealth away from the middle and working classes and funneled it directly to the wealthy. This was and continues to be a major contributor to the financial meltdown.
This combination is directly responsible for the redistribution of wealth to the wealthiest 5% over the last twenty years. It needs to be corrected.
To keep wealth in the country all that is necessary is to undo the changes that made this happen. Income taxes should return to about Kennedy-era levels, the Treasury should always offer bonds at 5%, in addition to the current coupons, and the power of the Fed should be greatly cut. These changes will allow the working and middle classes to retain more of their income, reduce their debt levels, and flow more capital into local economies.
Concentration of wealth at the top of any economy does none of these things. Excess concentration of wealth, as we have seen recently, will wreck the economy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/19/fox-news-viewe
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledg
Though I got to admit, O'Reilly is doing a decent job keeping his viewers informed. I still dislike the guy.
If GM and the banks did not like the arrangement, they should have just collapsed and walked away quietly. I agree, I feel uncomfortable that the Union members will end up owning so much of a company that they played a huge role in taking down. I doubt they are extending those shares to all the thousands laid off due to outsourcing over the past several decades.
I was also against the bailouts and I still am. Government grew too big in the mid to late 90's thinking the surpluses would never run out. They didn't plan ahead, they didn't factor in the inevitable economic cycle, the ups and guaranteed downs. When the economy recessed, they were left with less taxes and a gargantuan infrastructure. Here in California, the voters were given the option to raise taxes to continue to pay for all the government services they love so much. When they voted it down, everyone was shocked that the government cut state jobs across the board. What did they expect? You can’t run in the red forever. Either people were going to up the ante and pay more, or those services would need to be cut back. Too many people want so much, feel that they’re entitled to so much, but they don’t want to have to give anything in return. They can’t even show-up for jury duty every couple of years!
There's really no accuse for politicians to be so short sighted, but that probably has to do with the political make-up itself. When positions run on 4 year cycles, people tend to adapt 4 year tunnel vision. The government setup almost ensures our political leaders will not look too far into the future because it just very well may not be a future they get to lead or control anyway.
thegecko— I rarely cuss but I have always liked the effect of those two words together. Reminds me of a hammer. :-)
Only 68 pounds. Not bad.
Actually No. Banks nor GM ever asked the government to take them over. They asked for a financial bailout and were told the only way they could get one was with a government takeover. In GM's case, only if the Union was given everything it wanted and everybody else gets screwed. Like the union deserves anything after driving the company into the ground. Good God Almighty!
I was against all the bailouts, including Bush's. The government isn't supposed to follow our lead; they are supposed to lead! Great Googley Moo!
I think we'll just write off the debt to China.
Obama's advisors from the Clinton era are starting to look pretty good to me these days compared to the other bunches of bananas he has brought on board.
Do I have anything to stand on? Just their own words in writing and on videotape. You know, a smear campaign of lies. :-)
Some of the stuff on Fox is over the top but I prefer it to a broadcaster who says the President gives him a thrill up his leg! That's objectivity for you.
Yea, you look up that study and I'll wait . . .
Thanks, man. Its always a pleasure to read your commentaries. And you make sense . . . here and there.
Horse shit is actually a pretty profitable enterprise http://www.gardenclever.com/blended-horse-manure-i
Let us remember, banks other companies have asked the government to take control of their finances, some have even begged multiple times (GM *cough*). It's not like the government is this evil communist force trying to buy up the private sector, or desired to. They're not even doing it with tax dollars, they're doing it with borrowed foreign money for the most part (thanks China!). It’s just our tax dollars will pick up the tab if the plan goes south. So if anything, maybe you should be more concerned that other countries will be soon owning us and our government. Or to more closely equate to your previous statement, this deficit spending and borrowing from foreign aid will allow for those socialist and communist nations to essentially initiate a radically liberal and leftist coup, which will ultimately lead to the destruction of our democracy and great nation lol
Of course, if everything goes as hoped, banks and companies like GM will pay back the federal government, who will in return pay back our foreign lenders. That is, once the economy is booming again. Who knows when that will be…
The government is merely following the lead of its citizenry, borrowing way more money than it can afford, promising to pay it back sometime in the distant future, and hoping it doesn’t go bankrupt o.O
I wonder if a group of countries would ever go to war with the US over debt? People have fought and died for far less… and it doesn’t have to be a bombs and bullets type war, it could be an economic war, or a political war. How long does the US really think it can go, increasing the national debt, and not paying it back? How long does it think China and other countries will continue to invest in us, when in truth, because of our debt, or national growth is merely a smoke screen?
Many of the president’s advisors and staff come from the Clinton administration. An administration that worked closely and relatively well with the Republican controlled congress (no thanks to Newt). Do you really have anything to stand on when you label them Radical Marxists? I have yet to hear anything from anyone in the government that makes me believe they fit into that category and I definitely do not adhere to those beliefs either.
And Fox News isn’t even news, it’s a joke. It’s a Republican propaganda machine. It’s a bunch of hot-headed talk show hosts who don’t even know what journalism is and who love to bash everything down, including their guests, and exaggerate and sensationalize stories (not that MSNBC or CNN do that much better). Most of them, who want to Hannatize the nation (sacrilege?), and yes Sean did say that, blindly follow their conservative doctrine and insult/slander anything that does not fit into their worldview. They demonize liberals, democrats (who I don’t think are the same thing), and anything else breathing who do not adhere to Fox’s beliefs. I should look up the study that found that people who watch Fox News as their source of information about current invents were less informed and actually believed more inaccurate data than people who watched other news stations or got their news elsewhere (from newspapers, online sources, etc). And no, as much as I love the Daily Show, I don’t think that it’s a very valid news source, but a pretty good critique.
But yeah, go buy some horse shit, it’s good for trees and the environment. Go green man, have a blast.
James A Watkins Hub Author 4 weeks ago
wba108@yahoo.com— You are most welcome, my friend. Thank you for taking the time to read my article. I very much appreciate the accolades! :D
The quote by George Bernard Shaw is one of my favorites. The man was a sharp wit. No doubt about that. I am not into his politics but he seems to be an equal opportunity offender.
I totally agree with your wise and discerning remarks. It is hard to blame someone for lying when their whole political philosophy is built on the foundational fallacy that there is no such thing as the Truth.
To these types, any means justifies the ends. And the end they seek is pure power. Not power to do anything constructive--just power for power's sake.