More than a month ago I asked if Barack Obama’s “Robin Hood” tax plan would redistribute wealth. Based on the fact that only about 65% of Americans pay any income taxes but Obama was promising a “tax cut” to 95% of Americans I knew something was fishy. Because those numbers are mathematically impossible to compute I suspected he was calling an income redistribution scheme a “tax cut.”
My fear that such a scheme could be in the works went from speculation to reality when Obama answered a simple question from a business owner about taxes. We now have proof positive that Obama plans to take from the haves and give to the have nots. Watch Obama in his own words tell that he plans to “spread the wealth around” (about 4:45 into the video):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA[/youtube]
You can read more about this specific Marxist admission here. I say Marxist because it is just that — income redistribution from those with “wealth” to those who are “poor.”
Karl Marx wrote the following in 1875 in his Critique of the Gotha Program: “In a higher phase of communist society, … – only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” The bourgeois, according to Marx, is the elite with wealth. Their wealth is to be confiscated and redistributed to those without.
Obama won’t tell you this but his economic plan embraces the redistributive economic philosophy of Marxism. On that point alone it is easy for me to see that Obama is dangerous for America. Obama is change we can believe will enslave us. He is only qualified to lead a communist or communist-leaning nation like Russia, China, North Korea or Cuba. Now we know why leaders in those nations like him.
Updated: Apologies to the real Robin Hood who loved freedom and did not share Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth” mentality. Robin Hood fought the corrupt and oppressive ruling class who abused the poor. At that time it was “tax the poor to pay the rich” which is likewise a bad system.
Obama is more Robbin’ Hood than Robinhood.
Robinhood fought against “injustice and tyranny” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinhood), so it seems McCain is more like Robinhood – taking money out of the hands of the government and giving it back to the people.
Pingback: 10 Things I'd Like John McCain to Talk About on the Campaign | Ponderstorm
Pingback: 5 Reasons Why 'Joe the Plumber' Joe Wurzelbacher Resonates with Americans | Ponderstorm
There’s a fundamental flaw in your logic in that you start with a faulty premise. Obama doesn’t promise a tax cut to 95% of Americans — his site and his statements say that the cuts go to “working Americans.” As the Houston Chronicle says, “If you look only at workers, or “working families,” as Obama likes to put it, it turns out that 95 percent of workers receive a tax cut under Obama’s plans. We looked at that claim on Sept. 18, 2008, and ruled it True. Since then, the Tax Policy Center has published additional research specifically confirming our ruling: They found the Obama plan provided a tax cut for 94.8 percent of workers.”
Obama plans to “spread the wealth around” by allowing more middle-class Americans to hold onto their well-earned money, while taxing rich Americans more heavily. Now you can disagree with the wisdom of that if you like, but it seems fair to me to tax the rich more heavily. Arguably this strategy will lead to a “trickle-up” effect, because ordinary Americans will be able to make more purchases, benefiting all businesses and business owners — including the rich. certainly trickle-down economics have been an abject failure.
@Bodhi –
Obama says “working Americans” now, but he said he’d cut taxes for 95% of Americans in the past.
Further, his current explanation is that more than a third of “working Americans” pay no income tax, they do pay “payroll taxes”, so he wants to increase the income taxes (even more – the “rich” already pay a much higher percentage) on some hard working people to cover “payroll taxes” (that’s for Social Security and Medicare) for others.
It’s simple, these people are getting an income tax refund for money they never paid.
Obama wants to take an even more excessive amount of money from some people for further encourage a welfare state.
You see, when people are rewarded for not working hard, they are not going to work harder to try and generate wealth.
The wealth is simply shifting, and that’s a recipe for economic disaster.
By the way, I am guessing you like FDR?
Well, you should know that when he signed Social Security into law, he said the program should never become a charity.
Obama is promising to do just that.
Pingback: 2001 Radio Interview: Barack Obama Really Wants to Redistribute Wealth | Ponderstorm
why do all democrats feel the need to use the word “fundamental”? oh, i know. it’s to make you think they are educated on issues.
i have news for Bodhi up there – you won’t be holding onto your “hard earned money” for very long if Obama is elected President. the only “change” he is about is the CHANGE in your pocket.
here’s an example of “spreading the wealth around” for you:
a guy passes a bum on the street corner while walking into a restaurant for lunch. the waiter does a great job serving, but has an Obama shirt on to show support for his candidate. when it’s time to pay the bill, the customer says to the waiter “you did a great job son, but i’m giving your ten dollar tip to the bum outside instead of you.” when the waiter gets angry at the customer, he is reminded that this is a prime example of Obama’s policy of “spreading the wealth around”.
Taking from the hard-working and giving to the lazy. Sounds about right, don’t you think?
Pingback: Would Barack Obama Like Obama-Style Redistribution of Wealth Applied to Him? | Ponderstorm
Pingback: Spread the Wealth Gone Wild with Barack Obama = Marxism & Bankruptcy | Ponderstorm