::::: : the wood : davidrobins.net

The socialism of Barack Hussein Obama III

Political ·Sunday June 22, 2008 @ 18:22 EDT (link)

Economy: Let me quote from Obama's page: "I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. … We are all in this together… we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers." And there's the socialist coming out: reading between the lines, he's justifying the type of taking that take not from the rich, but from the working, and give to the indolent, to the illegal alien, to the couple that has children they cannot afford, all of whom who expect the government, that is, people that work to subsidize them. Whenever a politician says "we", keep a good grip on your wallet. Let's enumerate how he plans to rob from the useful and give to the useless, shall we?

One of the problems with Socialism is that if everyone is paid the same, there's no incentive to work harder, no incentive to develop new more efficient methods and technology. Pandering and theft are Obama's two actual campaign planks.

Let me just rant a bit about the term middle-class Americans, which Barack really likes to throw around—he wants to give them their cake and let them eat it alongside a chicken in every pot and a Hummer in every garage. Here's a secret: everyone thinks they're middle class, including people on welfare. Here's how they arrive at it: to most people, there are three divisions: poor, middle class, and rich. They aren't poor, they reason (let's face it, if you're in the United States legally, are able-bodied and of sound mind, haven't crapped out kids you can't afford, and are willing to go where the jobs are, it's pretty hard to be poor), but they aren't rich—they've seen how Donald Trump lives on T.V., and they aren't drinking champagne and getting whisked around in limousines. So, by the middle ground fallacy they believe they're middle class; and perhaps they are, by their definitions of rich and poor, but then by that so is 99% of the country, so the distinction ceases to have much meaning. It's just a phrase used to pander, to say "We're here for you, we're not trying to give anything to the evil rich." Don't buy it. Pretend the words aren't there.

Category Costs Who Pays Who Benefits
Economy
Tax cut for working families Pure pandering. Taxes are a percentage; that percentage even increases the more one makes, which people have the gall to call progressive (it may be a technical term, but it's certainly a loaded one). Where are these $500 and $1000 gifts to "middle-class Americans" going to come from? That's right, other "middle-class Americans"—the ones that are working just a bit harder. (Also, why for "families" and not singles? Does he count childless couples as "families"?) "Middle-class Americans" that work and/or provide jobs (capitalists). "Middle-class Americans" that don't work (dedicated communists, or "Obamunists").
Simplify tax filings This is is something I believe I can support, if it doesn't cost an inordinate amount. I personally don't find it all that complicated: we always file paper taxes and it takes us about half an hour with a calculator each year to put everything together; presumably filing online is even easier. Barack wants to make tax filing easier for middle-class Americanspeople that don't pay capital gains tax, by "using information from banks and employers." The only issue I see is privacy, but since banks and employers are already reporting information to the IRS, I see no harm in correlating it: why should I have to submit W-2s and 1099s to the IRS when they already have the information? I'd pay, say, $10 to save a half-hour a year in filing time. Everybody. Accountants? People that like their privacy? Everybody, I hope.
Fight for fair trade Sounds good: even protectionism is a good thing for Americans if it keeps jobs and enriches the nation; screw the global economy, support your country. So far so good; although I doubt the WTO will be as cooperative as he thinks and we'd probably do better to get out from under than unelected body. I'm also behind amending NAFTA to be more in our favor; the U.S. should not maintain agreements that are not in our interest (and canceling or amending isn't reneging; we are not refusing to stand by the terms of the agreement, just offering to either renegotiate in good faith, or to let everyone walk away). Sellouts to China, India, the European Union, etc. Everyone else (patriots?)
Transition assistance Weaselly, though—it looks like more free (or tax-free) money. I support education, I support retraining, but I don't think I should have to pay for someone else's education or training. Taxpayers. Freeloaders.
Support job creation More wolves and sheep luncheons: the government has never been efficient at creating jobs; it just sucks more money from the tax-paying. Private industry has always been much better at creating jobs and directing research. Taxpayers. Freeloaders.
Invest in U.S. manufacturing, create "green" jobs The first is fine; but let the market decide if it wants it or not, and how best to make it happen. Taxpayers. US industry, environmentalists.
Next-generation broadband Extremely high, if taxpayers are forced to pay to get broadband Internet to areas which aren't profitable for existing companies. Taxpayers; non-users. Very rural areas.
"Open Internet" (network neutrality) Somewhat sound in principle, but I also think it's fair that if a company pays for infrastructure, it should get to control it. However, since usually companies that lay network infrastructure are highly subsidized (in costs and in use of public land), I think a feasible compromise would be to let a company be able to control these subsidized networks for a limited non-renewable period (one to five years, depending on the network), and then it reverts to common carrier status. Customers of and companies that build infrastructure. Internet users.
Support unions, protect strikers There's too little support for employees to choose not to unionize; will his proposals force unionization on workers that don't want it? Our freedom to associate already implies unions, since a union is just an association of like-minded people, exercising their rights. No government intervention is needed, unless other laws (assault, intimidation) are being broken. Taxpayers. Lazy workers.
Raise minimum wage. Sure, raise it to $100/hour. That'll help everyone! Wait, it won't? Price caps (floors) aren't magic? You don't say. He also wants to "increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs": why should I pay for someone else's bad decision to have kids they can't afford? Workers: companies may want to hire someone at $5/hour, but not at $10/hour, so they just get by with fewer employees. Research, perhaps—technology will evolve to eliminate even more labor-intensive jobs. Unemployment service workers.
Universal mortgage credit Restructuring of tax law will fall on everyone (presumably renters will be hit hardest since they won't get the credit). If you have a mortgage, itemize, you lazy idiots. Renters. Poorer homeowners.
Home loan bills I agree with some of the fraud prevention ideas in principle, but what constitutes fraud? If someone signs a contract without reading and understanding it, the fault is theirs, not the mortgage broker's. As it is their fault, nobody should be helping them avoid foreclosure: it is their just desserts. Responsible owners/renters. Irresponsible homeowners.
Credit card bill of rights Mostly a bad idea. Currently, credit card companies must disclose changes to the agreement and cardholders can cancel their card if they want to; nobody forces them to keep it. Applying interest rate increases only to future debt makes credit card companies pay the difference; that and any rate ceilings will make it impossible for lower-income people or those with lower credit scores to get credit; the risk to the companies is higher than the return. Not the credit card companies, that's for sure. People with poor credit, taxpayers. Government bureaucracy.
Cap payday loan interest See credit card caps, above.
Reform bankruptcy laws for medical crises Are you kidding? If I as a taxpayer have to end up footing the bill for someone's medical procedure, damn skippy they'd better end up bankrupt and have to pay back whatever they got. Taxpayers. The indolent and those that don't plan ahead; a very few true hard-luck cases.
Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) He wants to bring coverage to businesses with 25+ employees, instead of the current 50+. Either those businesses will have to fire a lot of people, or go under due to their new costs. Small businesses; taxpayers; people that want to work. Nobody, really; maybe a few baby factories.
More child freebies More of my taxes to people with kids, discriminatory flex-time for parents, more "free" after-school programs. Repeat after me: if you can't afford to have children without government help, you cannot afford children: DO NOT HAVE THEM and we'll all be happier. Me, and others like me without children; responsible parents. Irresponsible parents.

I'm tired; I need to take a break. Education is next; I think you can see the trend: don't work, get free stuff from those that do. Where, oh where, is the community of producers like in The Fountainhead, and when can we leave the indolent thieves behind? Parts 1 2 3 4 5.

Books finished: Welcome To the Monkey House, Pawn of Prophecy.

DVDs finished: The Fast and the Furious, The Pelican Brief, 2 Fast 2 Furious, Basic Instinct 2, Double Jeopardy.