
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama gave his first general election speech on the economy yesterday.
In order to better understand Obama's economic thinking, you first need to understand two Marxist terms:
1) Bourgeoisie - the social class which obtains income from ownership or trade in capital assets, or from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares, and services. In short, the upper middle class and upper class.
2) Proletariat – the class of society which does not have ownership of the means of production. These are the wage and salaried workers. The working class and lower class.
In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie and proletariat are engaged in a constant class struggle, with the bourgeoisie being the oppressors, and the proletariat the oppressed. This is also how Barack Obama views America, thus Obama's continual rhetoric about "social justice" and "fairness". Here's an example. When Obama sees Exxon making huge profits, even though Exxon pays huge taxes, even though the government makes more money from Exxon's sales than Exxon does, even though Exxon does not have a particularly high profit margin relative to other industries (just phenomenal sales), even though Exxon employs many, many Americans and provides them with decent livings, Obama considers it "fair" to take Exxon's profits away. In his speech yesterday, Obama dusted off the old idea of a Windfall Profits Tax as the mechanism to take away the profits of the oil industry. He wants to take the profits from the oil companies (the bourgeoisie) and give it to those who need help paying their gasoline bills (the proletariat). This is a restatement of another Marxist tenet: From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
Note – For some reason, Barack Obama doesn't like it when people point out that his governing philosophies are marxist, just as he doesn't like being tagged as a liberal. I don't know why he doesn't have the strength of his own convictions, but I think it's time Obama stops running away from such obvious truths. The Democrats are always playing class warfare, so let's cut to the chase and call it what it is. I hope at least one person manages to ask Obama about this before we hand him the keys to the White House (but I won't be holding my breath. I know the mainstream media won't do it. They are Obama's head cheerleaders.)
One of the fallacies of Obama's Windfall Profits Tax is: If you increase the cost of doing business to the oil companies through a hefty tax, they will only pass that cost on to the consumers. Therefore, the Windfall Profits Tax will RAISE THE PRICE OF GASOLINE, which will harm consumers, and specifically HARM THE PROLETARIAT, who can least afford it. Obama would only be creating a new government program to restore what he took away with the Windfall Profits Tax in the first place, but with the following twist: Only the proletariat get to benefit from the government program. The bourgeoisie don't. This reveals the true intent of Obama policy – the redistribution of wealth, which is at the heart of Marxist philosophy.
Obama's economic speech highlighted the fact that Obama intends to raise taxes quite a bit to pay for tons of new government spending. Obama will reverse the Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 and above, lift the Social Security payroll tax cap, which will be a payroll tax increase on both workers making over $97,000 and the companies who employ them, and double the capital gains tax, which will have a negative economic ripple effect throughout the entire country. Obama also proposes a $1,000 middle class tax cut. Obama's proposed tax increases don't come anywhere close to covering his proposed spending increases, but I'll leave that alone for now. That's a discussion for another day.
Obama ticked off a list of our economic problems at the beginning of his speech (high oil prices, slow economic growth, high foreclosures, a credit crisis, an upward tick in unemployment, slowed job growth, everything Bush has ever said or done, etc). But then, Obama turns right around and recommends the VERY WORST COURSE OF ACTION POSSIBLE for a country that is in a recessionary period – A LARGE TAX INCREASE. That is like adding a huge log to the recessionary bonfire. It is extremely irresponsibe from an economic standpoint. If I didn't know better, I'd think Obama was TRYING to bring on a second Great Depression. Someone needs to tell Obama about this disastrous course he's plotting. Barry should shelve his utopian marxist dreams for a bit and take a couple college courses on basic economics, because he doesn't seem to be in touch with economic reality.
Note – The college economics classes that Barack takes must NOT be taught by alleged economist/NY Times columnist Paul Krugman. Krugman's disinformation would only make matters MUCH worse. The classes must be taught by a real economist, one who, unlike Krugman, can add and subtract.
Obama attacked his Republican rival John McCain on the gasoline issue yesterday:
"At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil," Obama said. "That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous."
I assume Obama is talking about McCain's support for the federal gas tax holiday, which is a gimmicky idea, but what Obama calls "outrageous" here would actually LOWER GASOLINE PRICES for consumers. This would HELP THE PROLETARIAT, and without starting new government programs. Soooo, what's outrageous ? What I consider outrageous is to pursue any policies that will raise gas prices at a time when they are already at an all-time high, as Obama is doing. Also, notice how Obama refers to a tax break as spending by saying McCain wants "to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break". You don't "spend" money on a tax break. A tax break affects REVENUE, not SPENDING. Obama's real objection is that the federal gas tax holiday will reduce government monies (anathema to a marxist), because those monies are left in the marketplace where government can't use them to engineer society.
I consider it almost a foregone conclusion that Barack Obama will be our next president, so we better make the best of the situation and get him up to speed in a big hurry. January 2009 isn't that far off. It's our patriotic duty.


{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I'm just curious king? How would a 25% (or less) of one fiscal quarter tax break (1.2 billion) exactly lower gas prices in any significant way? And that is to just Exxon correct? What about Chevron, BP, Sunoco et al?
No a 1.2 billion break to Exxon is a way for McCain to buy additional favor from the oil companies. Which happen to be the only non-regulated energy provider in the country. Hmmmm interesting.
You're right on that no one in the media will ask him about this–and he'll be cushioned away from anyone that would between now and November.
Since he's so concerned with social justice and considering his former church's mission statement, it would seem natural to ask him about issues like reparations and affirmative action as well. I've never seen it, though.
Of course any windfall profit tax would be passed on to the consumer. That is how all corporations work.
"King: For some reason, Barack Obama doesn't like it when people point out that his governing philosophies are marxist, just as he doesn't like being tagged as a liberal."
When pandering to the Kos and Moveon.org lobby, BO highlights his liberal resume'. Only when mainstream is the target audience, do these leftists retract their true identities. Let us not forget about BO's childhood idol, Frank Marshall Davis, who was a publicly identified communist. These people are started to paint a vivid picture.
See if I get this straight. Obama is for the poor unless they succeed, become rich, and gouge into his bragging rights of being top dog?
Sounds kind of snobbish to me.
As the price of gasoline escalates, there are several questions that should be answered: Are all of the global warming liberals driving battery cars? If they would have followed through on their concerns for the environment, the demand would yielded a much lower price than we have witnessed today.
In addition, our democrat majority house and senate seems to have failed us and dropped the ball. Their ineffectiveness has allowed crude to reach record prices and maybe change is in order. It's time to vote them out of office and change direction. We can't afford another 2 years of a liberal run senate.
As the libs continue to play their broken record of "failed bush policies", they leave themselves vulnerable.
AD is right again, it's all the Ds fault.
Red Neck,
That tax break wouldn't reduce oil prices in a "significant" way, but lessening the cost of business to any business results in a lower price.
If the oil industry is unregulated, why can't U.S. oil companies build new refineries or explore for domestic oil (which is the real way to significantly reduce price) ? It sounds EXTREMELY regulated to me.
Also, oil companies are not allowed by law to contribute to McCain's campaign, in part due to legislation passed by John McCain.
"da Truth: AD is right again, it's all the Ds fault."
I suspect that you're making situations worse by piloting a gasoline-powered vehicle? Even after Al Gore took the time to film his "informative" documentary, there are still some that refuse to follow his "worldly" advice.
These selfish partisan actions have directly caused fuel prices to escalate and now I'm left to suffer, while filling up the V8 pickup.
I hope you're happy about this. While the D's and L's continue to churn out additional greenhouse gases, the C's and R's are left footing the bill………..once again.
THE FACTS: Barack Obama is actually proposing a MIDDLE CLASS Tax Cut. John Mcain will provide nearly $2 Trillion in corporate tax cuts and will make permanent the Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. Ordinary Americans will only see a small fraction of the tax cuts John McCain is providing.
Doesn't matter who we vote for we screwed. Barack is a druggie Nation of Islam loser, and McCain is nuts and has a space alien growing off his neck. Either we screwed hard.
i just found this website…seems to echo the feelings of the author….
Hammer and Sickle = Marxism/Socialism/Communism
http://www.obamathecommie.com
Sometimes I find glimmers of reality over at King's place. Not this time.
"You don't "spend" money on a tax break."
How wrong-headed, or forgetful can a person be? Alleged "stimulus" checks are in the mail. These are explained as the return of taxes to Americans who first paid them in to the Treasury. All of those checks were charged on the national charge card. Not one dime was offset. All borrowed and added to the deficit.
That would be "spending" money on a tax break. Money we don't currently have.
The Truth wrote…..ummm….the truth.
da truth says, "John McCain will provide nearly $2 Trillion in corporate tax cuts".
Major kudos to John McCain !!! He got something right. Lowering corporate tax rates is conducive to job creation, american business remaining competitive in a global economy, and economic growth. The entire rest of the world has been dropping their corporate tax rates for some time now, making ours nearly the highest in the world. It's way past time for this reform. My only regret is that instead of McCain's reform, which will drop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, I wish we were dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to ZERO, in order to really give our stagnating economy a shot in the arm. Democrats are operating on a big government economic model of the past that is severely outdated for today's economic realities. That's not called 'change you can believe in', that's called 'living in the past'.
Oh shoot, I just revealed a large part of my next post, 'Obamanomics – Part II'. Darn it da truth, you forced my hand
"da King: My only regret is that instead of McCain's reform, which will drop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, I wish we were dropping the corporate tax rate from 35% to ZERO, in order to really give our stagnating economy a shot in the arm."
Such a drastic move would be sure to infuriate the Bourgeoisie. The proletariats would benefit, but the elites would lose much clout and we need to be sensitive to their needs.
KIng, that was actually in THE TRUTH's post. So give him his credit, not me.
As for economics, I found an interesting take on daily kos regarding federal debt:
The table shows federal indebtedness since 1940 both in actual dollar amounts and as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. Interesting in a dry and dull sort of way, especially the GDP column. The massive debt from WWII gradually was drawn down to 32.6% of GDP by the time Carter left office. However 12 years of radical Republican rule quickly doubled that figure (in dollar amounts, the federal debt tripled). Pappy Bush managed to push it up to 66.2% before he left office. Clinton then brought the debt back down to 57.4%, but Dubya turned that trend right around.
While I don't care for the smarminess, it's interesting to see that the gradn old party maybe is not as fiscally responsible as you all say.
And AD, please, you know nothing about me.
You said: These selfish partisan actions have directly caused fuel prices to escalate and now I'm left to suffer, while filling up the V8 pickup.
I hope you're happy about this. While the D's and L's continue to churn out additional greenhouse gases, the C's and R's are left footing the bill………..once again.
So who's the partisan? You can try all you want to pin this solely on D's, but things aren't the way they are because a D congress has bowed down to President Bush for the last 2 years. I guess everything was great from 2000 to 2006 with your unfettered rule? Your closed mindedness is exactly what is wrong with politics in this country. Maybe we should just call you Vince……….
Oops, sorry 'bout that, da truth. I guess my old eyes ain't what they used to be.
Alex,
Well, I'd sure hate for elites like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid to lose their power over all our lives. That would be tragic
Maybe we could start a government program for liberal leaders, like midnight congressional basketball, to keep them off the streets.
da truth,
Reagan and Bush Sr. had Democratic congresses. Congress controls the purse strings to a great extent. The president can't just do whatever he wants. Reagan in particular wanted to hold spending down, but the Dems wouldn't let him. Reagan also won the Cold War with his spending, kind of a biggie. Clinton's Republican Congress DID hold down spending, and drew Clinton into governing from the middle.
However, Bush Jr's reign blew the Republican claim to fiscal conservatism to smithereens, because he was a Republican with a Republican congress for six years, and racked up the most debt ever. No small wonder that Dems are resurgent now, between that and the war. The Bush Jr. era abandoned fiscal conservatism and responsibility. I have never, ever claimed otherwise. We ARE fighting two wars, however, and there was an inherited recession, 9/11 (which deepened the recession), and Katrina. There are some extenuating circumstances. You know which president spent the most ever compared to GDP ??? FDR. His spending EXCEEDED GDP for awhile. He had some extenuating circumstances also, such as the Great Depression and WWII. I assume DailyKos doesn't blame him for that.
But none of what any past presidents did or didn't do mitigate what Barack Obama plans to do, which would be a big step in the wrong direction.
Reverend Red, would you please tell me who voted for that fool bit of money returned to us? I thought it was the Democrat contolled Congress that had to vote in favor of it in order for me to get the foolish little bit of money. Am I really wrong in believing that the Congress voted that rebate into effect? Does the President really have the power to do that on his own hook?
Please, Red, let me know if I am wrong about this one.
And Obama wants a second stimulus package pushed through before the fall elections.
My statement that you don't spend money on a tax break is correct (and rather obvious). The stimulus package or any other tax breaks could always be offset with spending cuts (wasn't that what PayGo was supposed to be about ? guess the Dems threw that in the trashcan already), but I can see why Dems can't comprehend such a thing, since all they ever propose are spending INCREASES and tax RAISES.
Now, King, you bring up what should be an embarrassing aspect of present day life to Dems. When you mention PayGo you are talking about a real talking point with them in 2006. Oh my, that was before the election but I certainly heard a lot about that from Pelosi/Reid down to Reverend Red. What ever happened to that famous plan of theirs?
Dems don't get embarrassed, roy.