Posted on 03/14/2009 3:32:38 PM PDT by DrGop0821
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not." -- Page 5 Of Obama's Budget Plan
Why does this administration imply that success is gained only by cheating and "the wealthy" are somehow not playing by the rules?
And remember, when someone calls Obama a socialist, he calls them on the phone to scold him.
In case you're still not convinced that President Obama is a socialist, The Wall Street Journal gives you another example.
Turn immediately to page 11. There sits a chart called Figure 9. This is the Rosetta Stone to the presidential mind of Barack Obama. Memorize Figure 9, and you will never be confused. Not happy, perhaps, but not confused.
One finds many charts in a federal budget, most attributed to such deep mines of data as the Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The one on page 11 is attributed to "Piketty and Saez."
Either you know instantly what "Piketty and Saez" means, or you don't. If you do, you spent the past two years working to get Barack Obama into the White House.
If you don't, their posse has a six-week head start on you.
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, French economists, are rock stars of the intellectual left. Their specialty is "earnings inequality" and "wealth concentration."
Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the rich.
As described in Mr. Obama's budget, these two economists have shown that by the end of 2004, the top 1% of taxpayers "took home" more than 22% of total national income. This trend, Fig. 9 notes, began during the Reagan presidency, skyrocketed through the Clinton years, dipped after George Bush beat Al Gore, then marched upward. Widening its own definition of money-grubbers, the budget says the top 10% of households "held" 70% of total wealth.
Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute criticized the Piketty-Saez study on these pages in October 2007. Whatever its merits, their "Top 1%" chart has become a totemic obsession in progressive policy circles.
Turn to page five of Mr. Obama's federal budget, and one may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
Bungalow Bill reminds Obama to revisit the works of Karl Marx:
Obama is using language to convince the working class to hate and turn on the those who provide jobs. Obama’s coming after the wealth in this country, and he hopes you will jump on and demand equality while he destroys it. Once he destroys is with the evident class welfare in his budget, he will destroy all of our wealth and our chances to grow more wealth. Obama claims he is not a socialist, but he attacks the capitalists in this country like Marx once attacked the capitalists. The Obama budget screams socialism.
Allow me to yet again define socialism for Dear Leader: Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equality for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation. Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, and would represent a transitional stage between the capitalist and communist modes of production.
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.
Because to many liberals, the economy is a PIE ... a finite pie. The only way to get more PIE is for someone to get less PIE. (Michelle Obama herself implored us to give up some of our pie so some people can more pie).
Also, as everyone knows, Behind Every Great Fortune is a Crime
Not only that. They seem to believe everyone stays in one income quintile forever. No one ever starts out earning less, peaks in middle years, then earns less later on. In their minds, they are segregated classes.
And the double talk, as Øbama is desecrating American businesses, he’s telling the foreign investors how great our economic system is and there’s no need to worry about getting paid back, hate to see how that’s going to turn out, except for when we tell Øbama, you’re fired!
Look up a George Gilder article entitled "Zero Sum Folly - From Kyoto to Kosovo". He demolishes this fallacy.
>”While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not.”
True or False: Congress and the president control our economy.
True or False: They THINK they control our economy, and a re therefore able to “fix” it.
True or False: Congress and the president “do not [play by the rules] and live up to their responsibilities”.
Thank you, thank you.
Ever notice that liberals hoard all of their pie to themselves and want OTHERS to give up part of theirs? And whn those people say “NO! ENOUGH!” the selfish liberals have the never to cal THEM stingy!
I really hate liberals.
We shouldn’t be so surprised. French socialist economists can’t be much worse than English out-of-date socialist economists. John Maynard Keynes was socialist to the core (though he denied it, just as Carl Marx denied being a Marxist)
Anyone who can doubt the socialist/marxist/communist focus of BHO at this stage of the game couldn’t carry a thought in a hermetically sealed twinkie bag.
Obama said he has complete confidence in T-Bills (Probably thinks that means he expects a really good year for a Buffalo farm team!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.