Not News: Obama is a socialist. News: Was Actually a Member of A Socialist Party
October 8, 2008 by Laura | Trackback URI
Doubtless it’s racist of me to point it out, but a lot of people have been calling Obama a socialist for quite a while now, based on his views and plans should he be elected and his long history of associating with socialists. What’s new is that there is more concrete evidence that Obama is a socialist.
I first saw it at Ace’s, but this is definitely making the rounds - I even got several emails about it. While Larry Johnson has been way off base on other things like the Michelle Obama “whitey” video, this time it’s substantiated thanks to the WayBack Machine and other sources. (Johnson is a big Hillary! supporter - think this is this Hill’s October surprise? Because if so, I’m going to laugh all the way to the voting booth.)
Presented with facts that reducing tax rates RAISES REVENUE, he still insists that taxes should be raised because he thinks it’s “fair.” Again: it’s not about increasing revenue to government. It’s about punishing people who do well. It’s about redistribution of wealth.
Here’s what’s established so far: Obama attended membership meetings of The New Party (effectively disbanded in 1998 by a Supreme Court ruling) and the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America. The New Party’s website identified Obama as a member.
Allahpundit writes
The best part of this, assuming that it trickles up the media food chain and gets put to one of Obama’s spokesmen, will be trying to reconcile the inevitable profession of ignorance about the New Party’s agenda with David Brooks’s assertions about how “socially perceptive” Obama is. Truly, except for Ayers’s terrorist background, Wright’s sermons, Pfleger’s race-baiting, and the NP, his awareness of what’s going on around him is laser sharp.
The funny thing is that Red State had it last spring- I had forgotten all about it until I clicked through AP’s link. At the time I just shrugged it off - of course he’s a socialist, it’s not exactly news, just listen to the man! - and moved on. Maybe now it’ll get some traction. The media won’t report it, of course, unless forced to do so. So spread the word: if you have a blog, post on this topic, email it to your friends, and do what you can to let people know. Some mysterious force ::cough::: Hillary! ::cough::: got the Clinton News Network to actually commit the sin of Journalism against The One. Maybe that’ll happen again. You never can tell.
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
TELL THE DRUDGE REPORT ABOUT THIS!!!!
Well, Obama actually meant it when he said that McCain didn’t know what he was up against. Socialism in its ugliest shape is coming to America if Obama gets elected.
And the worst part is that many people who will end up voting for Obama, wouldn’t know what they are really voting for. They don’t go to the sites like this one, they don’t read long data-rich threads, they don’t watch scary YouTube kids-singing videos. We keep going down in polls because people listen to the huge propaganda machine–and take its lies at face value. What we need is an arsenal of conversation changers. These attention grabbers that make an impact in 5 sec. And THEN those whose opinions still can be changed may start reading more. Obama’s side if excellent in this. They have pros working around the clock on all sorts of visuals that go straight to the emotions level, bypassing logic. Just take a look at this site know what I’m talking about: http://www.designforobama.org/.
Can you name a single memorable anti-Obama poster that speaks to the center-leaning Democratic voter? I can’t. And to expose who Obama really is we need some of that. A new repository accompanied by a blog and a Facebook page are available to fill this gap. Please take a look–it will take you only a couple of minutes to form your opinion and decide whether you’d like to use it. Your comments and suggestions are more than welcome.
- Jeff Tyler (Dr. Slogan)
THE PERFECT STORM FOR A DEPRESSION ...
A far left Media …
A far left President …
A far left Congress …
A far left Senate …
A far left Supreme Court …
This would eliminate all the checks and
balances that our democracy is based upon.
Barack Obama formed his political and economic
ideology, and his radical associations, during the
TWENTY YEARS … yes, that’s TWENTY YEARS … when
he followed Marxist Black Liberation Theology, in
Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American, racist church.
And, now, with our country on the brink of depression,
Obama wants to impose new laws which would change
America into a third world country.
You may be upset with George Bush, but in spite
of Obama’s slogans, John McCain is NOT George Bush …
so don’t over react to Obama’s 600 million dollar
Propaganda campaign designed to highjack America !!!
A vote for Obama is a vote for changing America beyond
recognition … and, it would be a vote for voter fraud,
a corrupt media, socialism, and the end to America as we know it.
Keep America free, strong, safe, and American …
Elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.
This is really sad. Is this what our country has become. Is this what Christianity has turned into in the United States? I am so glad I no longer identify with Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are full of liars and hypocrites. God is not pleased with any of you. And the fact that many of these evangelicals “supposedly” are showing now their true colors scares me. Christianity has lost its way, and Christians are now allowing politics to to dictate what the bible says. A horrible combination. Nothing suggest that Obama is a socialist or a terrorists. Im not voting for him, but a lie is a lie. We need to get a grip.
Brian, quite a lot suggests that Obama is a socialist, starting with his proven decades long associations with Marxists and ending with his stated goals of wealth redistribution. Argue the point on the merits, instead of just asserting that I’m lying; if you can disprove all the things that even the media admits to I’ll be very interested in seeing that.
Umm, decreasing taxes does NOT increase tax revenue, and no credible economist would ever say that. That is not a fact, as you say it is. After Bush’s tax cuts, total tax revenues did indeed increase. However, correlation does not imply causation. Just because tax revenues went up does not mean that the increase was a direct result of the tax cut itself. Ice cream sales and crime go up in the summer. Does higher crime cause people to buy more ice cream, or vice versa? Of course not.
The consensus among economists (both government and independent), even conservative ones, is that tax revenues would have been higher if not for the tax reduction (even if tax cuts spur some economic growth). This group includes The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist. Make sense now?
I am not speaking to whether or not there should be tax cuts or tax increases. I am only pointing out that the (lower taxes = higher tax revenues) argument does not hold any water. Do some research before taking someone’s statements as fact.
Read up on the Laffer curve, Marc.
Added: I’m not interested in consensus. I’m interested in hard numbers, which aren’t as subject to politics. And the numbers went up when the tax rates went down.
The Wall Street Journal -
Now I feel kind of bad for popping off a smart-aleck response. But Marc, you just countered my assertion with one of your own, no links, no supporting argument, nada. For all your attempt to marginalize my view on this, it’s actually quite common and is shared by reputable people, so I’m not just pulling it out of my nether regions. Not that I take the bandwagon effect too seriously, of course, but the point I’m trying to make is I just don’t make this stuff up. I’ve read up on this to some extent, found an argument to be persuasive, and that’s the belief I subsequently subscribed to. If you want to prove me wrong, do so. But you do have to actually prove it (or try to) to be taken seriously.
Actually, I am quite familiar with the Laffer Curve. If you don’t understand that correlation does not imply causation, then there’s no need to discuss this further.
How can you say you don’t care what the consensus among economists is, yet you subscribe to the Laffer Curve, which is just an idea that can’t be tested?
I’ve read both sides of the argument, extensively. We can agree to disagree. I don’t have a whole lot of time right now to cite sources, etc, but I don’t believe that’s even necessary. My original claim was that lowering taxes does not increase tax revenue in and of itself. You claimed that to be a fact, and it clearly is not a fact. If anything, it’s a theory. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
We can agree to disagree, but the burden of proof is on you, Marc. I’m a reasonable person. Convince me that this guy and all the others like him are wrong.
The Laffer curve is based on logic, and so far, correlation seems to bear out that logic. If you want to deny the obvious, Marc, you had better find a flaw in the logic or otherwise uncover some alternate variable causing the correlation.
Or how exactly did you intend to “prove” that higher taxes would have yielded higher revenues? Doctor, heal thyself!
Laura and Drew, you have got to be kidding me. Logic? You are the ones making the claim that lower tax rates equate to higher tax revenues (which is completely counterintuitive, by the way). When you make a claim, you have to back it up. On the contrary, I am not making any claims. All I said is that the consensus among economists is that tax revenues would have been higher had there not been a tax cut. Therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU. Unbelievable.
There is absolutely NO evidence which supports your claim that “tax rates RAISES REVENUE”. Zero, zip, zilch. I don’t think that you are being critical enough. You are taking everything at face value and probably from partisan sources. For example, the link you gave me was from the National Review, a conservative publication. That article doesn’t prove anything.
For crying out loud, just read the Wikipedia entry on the Laffer Curve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
As a side note, the whole Democrat vs Republican, Liberal vs Conservative divide in this country is killing independent thought. People are not being critical enough of what they see, hear and read because they are looking through the lense of their choice.
Once again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT LOWERING TAXES INCREASES TAX REVENUES. You are making this claim, so it’s up to you to prove it. I invite you to try, but I am doubtful that you can, because nobody else has been able to.
I figure I might as well give you my opinion. I agree with the Laffer Curve, in principle, when you approach very high rates of taxation like 99%. There’s nothing wrong with it, as a theory.
But, if you look at all of this in context, things take on a wholly different color. The problem in practical application is that we don’t have a 99% tax rate, or 90% or 80%. If you are talking about cutting taxes from say, 36% to 33%, that’s not going to have the same effect as if you were to cut a tax rate from 90% to 50%. In the latter case, you’re probably going to see a surge in economic growth. But that’s a very, very extreme, hypothetical situation, and we are nowhere near that with our current situation. That’s my opinion.
I’m glad that you see the logic and intuition of the Laffer curve now. You should also keep in mind that Reagan doubled revenues by cutting taxes, and that since Reagan, we have raised taxes. George W. Bush cut taxes (although not down to Reagan levels), and there is no evidence that revenues suffered significantly.
All you have to do is ask yourself, Would I be more willing or less willing to work 60 hours a week if the government took a higher percentage of your income? After that, ask yourself, Would I be more or less willing to work for additional money if the government gave me additional “free” benefits, such as medicine?
Then keep in mind that millions of other Americans are asking these same question questions. Only, they aren’t hypothetical (”would I?”) questions. They are real questions, and they result in real decisions.
Drew,
You cannot say that Reagan doubled revenues by cutting taxes. That was something that Sean Hannity said in 2005. If you’re getting your information from Sean Hannity, God help you! One major thing that I try to get across to people is to consider your sources, FACT CHECK, and try to stick to objective sources who don’t have an agenda. I know that’s hard to do. I try to look at the extremes of both sides, and usually the truth falls somewhere in the middle.
There is NO evidence at all that Reagan’s tax cuts increased tax revenue. In fact, all the evidence that does exist points to the contrary. I’m not going to do your research for you.
Another thing, the “logic and intuition” of the Laffer Curve only applies at very, very high levels of taxation. At lower, more realistic levels of taxation, it is completely illogical and counterintuitive that lowering taxes would increase tax revenues.
Yeah, federal revenues didn’t double under Reagan; they just went from 517 billion in 1980 to 909 billion in 1988. My bad.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/yearrev1980_0.html#usgs302
Hey Drew, forget about the total revenues numbers for a second, because that really doesn’t matter. You are still dodging the heart of the issue. The point here is that you can’t prove that increased revenue comes from tax cuts!! I don’t know what it will take for you to realize that. Have you ever heard of GDP growth? Don’t you think there are other reasons why tax revenues would grow? Go take a statistics course or two and then get back to me.
Yeah, GDP grows when a country has a low tax burden. I can’t “prove” it? I’ve already shown you the logic and intuition behind my position, and now I’ve shown you the statistical correlation as well. That’s about all you can ever do to prove something in economics.