Obama's Socialism

By Chappy Conservative
“…According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another…[E]veryone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed. Socialists complain that capitalism necessarily leads to unfair and exploitative concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of the relative few who emerge victorious from free-market competition—people who then use their wealth and power to reinforce their dominance in society. Because such people are rich, they may choose where and how to live, and their choices in turn limit the options of the poor…” (Britannica.com, “Socialism”)

Socialism and capitalism are two doctrines which preach equality for individuals, but in two drastically different respects. Capitalism preaches equality for all IN the system (free market), and socialism preaches equality in the DISTRIBUTION of the final product (after the work is done). Both systems seem fair, one for the opportunity to work, and one for the equal treatment of the distribution after the fact.

Barack Obama has used terms such as “economic justice”, “redistributing the pie”, and “fairness” when describing what are essentially socialist tendencies. Obama wants to taxes the wealthy and redistribute the money to the poor under the guise of “investments for society”.

“Economic Justice”

During his NAACP speech at the group's 99th annual convention in Cincinnati, Sen. Obama repeated the term “Economic Justice” at least four times. "I've been working my entire adult life to help build an America where economic justice is being served," he said.
"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful, wealthy, and/or “privileged” and redistributing their wealth by government mandate. It's a euphemism for socialism.

“Redistribute the Pie”

“…It's clear from a close reading of Obama’s two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor. Following this socialist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old....” (See “Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism”)

“Investments for Society”

Some of the proposed “Investments for Society” include:

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service"
• "Universal 401(k)s"
• "Wage insurance"
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• And even a Global Poverty Act.

O’Reilly Interview:

In a recent interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, Obama, after briefly discussing raising taxes to aid social security beneficiaries, stated:
OBAMA: There is no free lunch. So my only point is…
O'REILLY: No, there is a free lunch.
OBAMA: What is the free lunch?
O'REILLY: The free lunch is that you're taking the wealthy in America and the big earners, OK, you're taking money away from them and you're giving it to people who don't. That's called income redistribution. It's a socialist tenant. Come on, you know that. You went to Harvard.
OBAMA: Teddy Roosevelt supported a progressive income tax.
O'REILLY: Not at the level you do.
OBAMA: Bill, I don't like paying taxes. You think I like writing a check? What I believe is that there's certain things we've got to do. And we've got to help people who are having a tough time affording college so they can benefit like we benefited from this great country. People who are have having a tough time; they don't have health care. People who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay the bills. And there are certain things we've got to do.

When O’Reilly pointed out the blatantly obvious socialist ideology that Obama subscribes to Obama did not defend himself, he simply stated that a previous President supported it (side-stepping the question), and when that didn’t work he promptly explained that it would be hard and that he doesn’t like paying taxes (drawing on sympathy). In no way, shape, or form did Obama attempt to address the question of “you are preaching socialism”.

O’Reilly, later in the interview, calls Obama out again on having socialist views. This time Obama did not attempt to sidestep or draw on sympathy, he went a different route, and preached “neighborliness”.

OBAMA: The Bush record, the numbers are what they are. $4 trillion. Now we've got a choice. We can keep on just borrowing and dump it on our kids. That's option No. 1.
O'REILLY: You can take it from the wealthy and give it to everybody else.
OBAMA: Or we could have across the board tax hikes, what you just talked about.
O'REILLY: It's not income redistribution.
OBAMA: Well, but the problem is, if I am sitting pretty, and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it if she can't, what's the big deal for me to say I'm going to pay a little bit more?
O'REILLY: Because it inhibits…
OBAMA: That is neighborliness

Unfortunately, neighborliness requires a certain amount of choice in the matter. If my neighbor is in economic trouble I could help he/she out by offering a helping hand, maybe talk about what he/she can do to get out of the rut where they are currently situated. At no time does neighborliness mean because I have, and you do not, I must give a large percentage of my wealth to the government. That is socialism.

Apparently Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, has jumped on the socialist band wagon and is actively advocating “tax the rich, give to the poor”. Biden was recently quoted “that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans.”

I don’t agree with socialism. I don’t agree that every person should have an equal piece of the pie. I think every person should be guaranteed an equal opportunity in the market, not an equal share when all is said and done.