Obama and His Democratic Liberal Supporters are Closet Socialists
© David Burton 2010
Obama and His Democratic Liberal Supporters are Closet Socialists
© David Burton 2010 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From Dictionary.com
“A principal promise of socialism was to replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan. No more guessing what consumers will buy next year and how suppliers and rival firms will behave: everyone will be led by government's visible hand to play his and her role in an all-encompassing central plan. The ‘wastes’ of competition, cycles of booms and busts, and the ‘unfairness’ of unequal incomes would be tossed into history's dustbin. “Of course, socialism utterly failed. But it wasn't just a failure of organization or efficiency. By making the state the arbiter of economic value and social justice, as well as the source of rights, it deprived individuals of their liberty – and tragically, often their lives.” (Ref. 1) “Longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas {once} said: ‘The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.’ In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas' words. “The fact that each of us depends upon the efforts of millions of others does not mean that some ‘society’" transcending individuals produces our prosperity. Rather, it means that the vast system of voluntary market exchange coordinates remarkably well the efforts of millions of individuals into a productive whole. For Obama to suggest that government interfere in this process more than it already does – to ‘spread’ wealth from Joe to Bill, or vice versa – overlooks not only the voluntary and individual origins of wealth, but the dampening of the incentives for people to contribute energetically to wealth's continued production.” (Ref. 1) These words were written in 2008. Today (2010) the truth of these words is more evident than ever. President Obama may not be a card carrying socialist, but at the least he has demonstrated by his actions, and his words that he is a closet socialist. On January 14, 2010, President Barack Obama went on television to announce a new tax. He told the nation that he was going to impose a $117 Billion tax on the major banks who received TARP money even though they have already paid back the TARP money with interest. At the time, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley had paid 100% back and Citigroup had paid 50% back, while GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had paid 0% back and they would not have to pay any of this tax. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan never wanted TARP money to begin with but were forced to take it by Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson. They paid the TARP money back as soon as the government allowed them to do so. Now, for taking money that they never wanted, they would have to pay a considerable amount of the newly announced $117 billion tax. Many would call this outright thievery. Others will just call it Socialism or as Robin Hood might say, it is just “robbing the rich and giving to the poor.” Winston Churchill once said, “If, when you are young, you are not a liberal [change liberal to socialist], then you have no heart. If, when you are old, you are not a conservative, then you have no brain.” I would claim that Obama and his liberal supporters are clearly socialists and that they have no brains. Instead of trying to work with the big banks and getting them to give loans to credit-worthy people and businesses, President Obama took a very populist and socialistic attitude toward the banks. He seemed to forget that he had an unemployment rate of over 10%, which required attention and help from the banks that he was proposing to punish. It has become increasingly evident that President “Obama and the current Democratic cabal in Washington are focused on taking more and more from productive members of our society and giving to less productive participants in our American Tableau, to the point of touting the need for ‘spreading the wealth’ and pontificating that maybe some people have ‘made too much.’“ (Ref. 2) “We are already to the point where there are more people in the wagon than those pulling it. Every day we are getting closer to the point where over half of the people depend on some sort of government check, yet 50% of us have no skin in the game and pay no federal taxes.” (Ref. 2) “Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom.” (Ref. 3) “Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. . . . Socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom.” So remember, as he’s told us, “Obama wants to change America.” (Ref. 3) “The ultimate test of the socialistic tendencies of our president is the degree to which he supports the expropriation of private wealth, grows government spending, and cements government power. . . . the evidence here is overwhelming. “Just consider the federal government’s take-over of the banking and financial service industry, the unconstitutional dictating of private salaries, the take-over of GM and Chrysler, the maniacal focus on government-run health care, and Obama’s plan to impose a carbon tax through cap-and-trade.” (Ref. 4) “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck and is fond of duck food, it is prudent to presume it’s a duck until proven otherwise. . . . The evidence speaks for itself: Obama is not a duck . . . but he is a real and genuine socialist.” (Ref. 4) President Obama follows in the traditional socialistic tendencies of the Democratic Party. Many may justifiably argue that he is more of a socialist than most or all of his illustrious predecessors. The results of his socialistic leanings are likely to be just as disastrous as the preponderance of previous social experiments. A glaring recent example is the result of one of the social policies of Obama's Democratic presidential predecessors, Presidents Carter and Clinton. Many have argued that a major cause of the economic collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008 dates back to 1977 "when President Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act {CRA} which . . . began the economic slide by extending home loans to those who were not qualified." (Ref. 5) Democratic ultra-liberal Congressman, Barney Frank of Massachusetts who was and still is Chairman of the Congressional Financial Services Committee, used his office to induce Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into helping low-income families get loans. He and other liberals in the government used the regulations of the CRA to threaten lenders into making these loans. In order to meet the demands of these socialists, banks loaned money for subprime mortgages. Since these loans were guaranteed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both government-backed bodies, lenders were unconcerned about the soundness of the loans. The results of these policies are now evident - our financial system was brought to the verge of collapse while the American taxpayer will be paying for all of this for years to come. Following up on Carter's 1977 actions, President Clinton, in 1995, ordered "Treasury Secretary Rubin to rewrite the rules, forcing banks to satisfy quotas for SUB-PRIME loans to satisfy 'CRA' ratings. The RATING was the key to . . . the expansion of loans to borrowers who were not fully qualified to repay the loans." (Ref. 5) In the mid-1990s, Henry Cisneros, the top housing official in the Clinton administration, "loosened mortgage restrictions so that first-time buyers could qualify for loans they could never get before." Cisneros now says, that "people came to homeownership who should not have been homeowners. . . . There are people who should remain renters." (Ref. 6) Einstein said that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.” The Obama administration is exhibiting signs of insanity. “With home prices continuing to plummet every month, it may be hard to believe. But it's now officially government policy to keep those home values as high as possible. And Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program {TARP}, doesn't like it one bit. “In his latest quarterly report to Congress, Barofsky accuses the Obama administration of recklessly re-inflating the real estate bubble in an attempt to keep the housing market going and prevent the collapse of financial institutions.” (Ref. 7) “The Federal Reserve has been buying mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related debt in enormous volume, projected to reach $1.2 trillion by the time the effort expires at the end of March. Treasury is spending hundreds of billions more to capitalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so the agencies can continue to finance home mortgages. … And while Treasury's $75 billion Home Affordable Modification Program is designed to forestall foreclosure for homeowners, its direct (and intended) effect is to keep home prices high.” (Ref. 7) “ ‘Even if TARP saved our financial system from driving off a cliff back in 2008, absent meaningful reform, we are still driving on the same winding mountain road, but this time in a faster car,’ cautions the report.” (Ref. 7) When Barofsky, a former assistant attorney general in New York specializing in mortgage fraud says price inflation is not just a waste of resources but a dangerous development, we'd all do well to listen. We’ve been there before. The Obama administration is doing the same thing over again but expecting a different result – typical of socialist insanity. In addition to the obvious economic consequences of his socialistic tax-and-spend and spread the wealth around policies, Obama’s socialism will likely impact the nation in a way that may mean the loss of many American lives through significant reductions in defense spending. “The threat that is most likely to hobble U.S. military capabilities is not a peer competitor {such as Russia or China}, rather it is {Obama’s socialistic} health care {program}. In the 1950’s health care was about 4 percent of gross domestic product. . . . Health care reached the 16 percent mark after the millennium. It is now in striking distance of 18 percent of an admittedly battered GDP. … Health care cost control is an illusion.” (Ref. 8) “The billions needed for reforming health care will likely come, in one way or another, from cuts in defense spending. . . . Fewer and fewer aircraft and ships will be bought. There will also be less training and more restrictions on operations with and for allies. America has a powerful military that will take a while to unravel, but unravel it will. The nation’s defense budget is about to tangle with a really dangerous adversary.” (Ref. 8) “Several studies have predicted growing pressure on the Treasury from Social Security and Medicare. Both trust funds are expected to be exhausted around 2017, when general revenues will then make up the program deficits directly. The unfunded liability of Medicare, Social Security and the drug prescription benefit of Part D all run in the neighborhood of $50 trillion dollars. Add all of this to the federal budget deficit of $1.4 trillion this year and greater than $1 trillion going forward and one can see a train wreck coming. Defense is likely to be at the epicenter of the explosion.” (Ref. 9) A Newsweek article by Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson stated, “As interest payments eat into the budget, something has to give – and that something is nearly always defense expenditure. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a significant decline in the relative share of national security in the budget is already baked into the cake. On the Pentagon’s current plan, defense spending is set to fall from above 4 percent now to 3.2 percent of GDP in 2015 and 2.6 percent of GDP by 2028.” Professor Ferguson later states, “This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy and Air Force.” (Ref. 9) Socialism is famous for its failure to control spending because of its central planning and centralized control of the economy and the means of production. Russian Communism and the Chinese version are recent examples. Both have moved away from the failed Communist version of socialism towards free market capitalism. Why are Obama and the Democrats leading us down this failed path? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- References:
|
| 8 July 2010 {Article 87; Politics_16} |