Friday, September 21, 2018

Is Barack Obama A Socialist?

by D. E. Carson (writer), , October 31, 2008

Senator's comments should give one pause to think. Too bad his supporters won't.

No man can know the heart of another, so it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that Obama is a socialist.


In a 1991 interview with a Chicago NPR station, Obama lamented that a casualty of the Civil Rights movement was that the United States Supreme Court had not “broken free of the constraints of the Constitution” and assumed the authority to “redistribute the wealth” and that redistribution is a cause that should be taken up by the legislative branch of the federal government.

More recently, Barack Obama spoke to average American Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Worzelbacher and said, “I believe we need to spread the wealth.”  This is not conjecture nor is it speculation.  It is Obama in his own words and his own voice caught on tape and played over and over again.

By coincidence another article asking the same question as this was published today.  Donald J. Boudreaux (2008) writing in The Christian Science Monitor set out to answer the question.  In the strictest sense of the word socialism Obama is not a socialist.  But you have to pattern your definition solely based on the dictionary definition as the government ownership of “the major means of production and finance” and ignore fringe interpretations.

Honestly, Obama has not openly advocated government take-over of manufacturing and banking institutions.  No, Congressman Maxine Waters (D-CA) has the franchise on government ownership.  But Obama is advocating a fringe version of socialism in which guidelines for running the economy are put into place.

This kind of socialism, which could be labeled “Obamanomics” does not believe in the rewarding of individuals for their entrepreneurial efforts, rather, that wealth is the result of the collective efforts of all members of society and that all members of that society should share in that cumulative wealth.  Boudreaux (2008) describes Obamanomics as an ideological parasite that sucks the entrepreneurial energy out of the free-market.  It currently runs rampant across Europe and has the potential to “cross the pond” to America.

Perennial socialist candidate for president Norman Thomas has openly conceded that Americans would never accept socialism wholesale, however, when socialism is repackaged under the label of “liberalism” with all of its government-provided entitlements Americans, “will adopt every fragment of the socialism program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened” (Boudreaux, 2008).

The free-enterprise system demands that whoever harbors an entrepreneurial spirit should be allowed to reap the rewards of his or her own efforts.  It also demands that every able-bodied person should contribute to society by having a job and doing that job to the best of his or her ability, paying taxes and not relying on the government for a living.

Obamanomics, on the other hand tells everyone to stay home and wait for the government to send you a check to pay your bills even though you don’t have a job or don’t make enough money to be required to pay federal income tax.  Obamanomics increases taxes on those who already support the federal tax bill.  According to the IRS, those who are in the top 10% of wage earners in America already pay 47% of the revenues collected.  Obamanomics want to increase the share of the top 10% while making the rest of us pay less in taxes.  Doesn’t seem fair does it?

Sure it does, Mr. Carson!  Those who make more should have to pay more.

Sorry cousin, it doesn’t work like that.  You see those who make the most already pay the most.  The American income tax system is graduated already.  Those who make more already do pay more.  But Obama doesn’t care.  He wants to take even more money away from those who have earned it and give it to those who didn’t.

Socialism has already been tried.  “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” is straight out of Karl Marx.  It was tried in the former Soviet Union (the second “S” of USSR stood for “Socialist”) and it failed because no government can corner the market on knowledge and ingenuity.  Socialism deprives the people of their freedom to choose what and how they want to innovate and expand and improve.  Socialism is also a precursor to tyranny.  Socialism looks and sounds good on paper, but when placed into practice it is revealed as a dysfunctional and morally cruel economic system.  After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, the late Robert Heilbroner, a staunch socialist all his life, conceded the tragic failure and oppressiveness of socialism.

To bring this home on a personal note:  I am not a rich person.  I want to be, but currently I am not.  I believe in the American free-enterprise system that made the United States of America in to the greatest personal wealth generator this world has ever known.  The innovations and inventions of this world came from the minds of those who live in America, who are always looking for ways to improve anything and everything.  “It may work, but I want to make it work better” is the mantra of the entrepreneurial spirit.  Anyone in America can make a personal fortune by making something better and that requires work.  Work drives free enterprise.  Welfare drives socialism.

Everyone in America – in the world wants to be rich.  The best way to attain that goal is to work for it.  Americans who want to lie around all day and watch TV are the unpatriotic ones as are the politicians who promise government entitlements.  Government entitlements aren’t patriotic – they’re socialist.  People who lounge around all day and leech money off the government, when they’re perfectly capable of working, are a burden to society.  They are lazy, worthless, thumb-sucking crybabies with out a shred of decency or shame.   These people are the dregs of society and they produce nothing.  They are leeches and need to be ferreted out and exposed for the slugs they are.  These are the people who will be voting next Tuesday and they will be voting to broaden the scope of government entitlements.  They will be voting to give handouts to people who don’t deserve them.  They will be voting to raise everyone’s taxes.  They will be voting to increase the national debt.  They will be voting to cut, run and surrender Iraq to al-Qaeda and other nations that want to do America harm.  They will be voting to eviscerate our military because they are stupid fools who believe that peace is just the absence of conflict.  They will all be voting for Obama because they are too stupid to check things out for themselves and they just let NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN tell them what to think.

I want to be rich by working for it and earning it – not by having the government give me a $10 million share of Bill Gates’ fortune.  Thomas Payne once said, “that which we achieve too easily we esteem too lightly” and I believe that.  Socialism cannot work because the lazy, worthless slugs who receive their Obamanomic Equalization Check will squander it on stuff they don’t need or can’t afford.  Sure that’s their right – everyone has the right to be stupid, just look at California’s state supreme court.

But having the government confiscate all the wealth through unfair taxation and then giving it to people who didn’t earn it is morally reprehensible and it violates the basis of the free enterprise system and it makes America a weak nation.  Every patriotic American should be offended – incensed even – at the notion of wealth redistribution in the greatest economic powerhouse nation in the world.

It just goes to show how gullible some people can be.

About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

7 comments on Is Barack Obama A Socialist?

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on October 31, 2008 at 09:07 pm

JG:  I can't say for sure that Obama is a socialist.  I can say he has some socialist ideas with which I cannot and will not agree.  Do I think that the government should stop ALL entitlements?  Well, yes and no.  Social Security was never meant to be a person's sole retirement income.  Medicare -- I have my issues with it and they are too complicated to elaborate here.  But should the government really be in the business of taking care of people?  I really don't think so.  It isn't a problem when it's a hand UP, but when it becomes a hand OUT, that's a different story.  In the days before Social Secuity and FDR people were expected to plan for themselves.  In the days since FDR, people have become too reliant on the government to bail them out.  I really don't think it should be the government's responsibility to take care of people.  Protect them from foreign invaders, sure, but the people should really be responsible for their own well-being.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on October 31, 2008 at 09:15 pm

I always thought Jesus was a socialist

Well Deano, ya thought wrong.  Jesus didn't mean for people to leech off the rich -- or the government and frankly, that's what I see Obamanomics establishing -- or reestablishing as the case may be.  Sure Jesus wants His followers to help the poor.  But He wants His followers to do it out of benevolence -- not coersion. When the government forcefully takes money from one and gives it to another, that's coersion.  Taxation is coersion because if you don't pay taxes, you go to jail (ask Survior Season One winner Richard Hatch - I'm sure he's got a lot of stories about that one).  Generosity comes from the heart, not the government.  Jesus wasn't anti-rich.  Jesus was anti-selfishness.  It's called "free will".  We are not required by God to give.  It is merely a suggestion that can result in good things for you.

Multiple studies have shown that conservatives give far more money, time and other resources than liberals.  Liberals are only generous with other people's money.  Case in point, Joe Biden has netted over $3 million over the last three years and given a mere $3,000 or so to charity.  John Edwards and John Kerry have similar records.

Just remember, I'm not calling Obama a socialist, but he sure has a lot of socialist tendencies in what he says.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on November 02, 2008 at 02:09 pm

"I'm upper-middle class, but I'm certainly not rich. Why is the ultra rich paying less than me?"

Did you attend a government-run school?  You must have to be so ignorant of how simple math works.  If you attended a private school then my apologies to your math teacher(s) -- they couldn't help that you didn't want to learn.

Okay.  School is now in session.  Mr. Carson is presiding.

The top 10% of all wage earners in the United States (meaning those you refer to as "the ultra rich") pay 65% of the total tax bill with the remaining 35% of the bill divided up among the remaining 90% of the wage earners.  Now remember, this doesn't include those who make less than $42,000 because those people don't even pay taxes - it's an exemption so they get all their withholdings back (except for Social Security) at the end of the year.  And these are figures from the IRS, not The New York Times (whose new motto won't fit into the masthead: "All the news that makes liberal Democrats, including and especially Barack Hussein Obama look really, really good and makes all Republicans including and especially George W. Bush look really, really bad so that the liberal agenda gets shoved down the throats of America whether you like it or not".  So you'll forgive me if I don't consider a the NY Times a "reliable" source of unbiased reporting).

Now, having said all of that.

Let's say for the argument that the total income tax bill is $1 billion (keeping it simple, I know the numbers are higher, but work with me here).  Let's also say that there are 275,000,000 wage earners in America (the other 25,ooo,000 are retirees or under age).  Ten percent of that 275,000,000 are the "ultra rich" -- 27,500,000.  Sixty three percent of that $1 billion equals $630,000,000 divided among 27,500,000 people comes to an individual tax bill of $22.90 per person.  The remaining tax bill of $370,000,000 divided among 247,500,000 wage earners comes to $1.49 per person.  That doesn't even begin to break down the remaining 90% into their respective economic classes.

SO.  The ultra rich are paying almost $23 in taxes and the rest of us are paying $1.50.  Please explain to me how the ultra rich are paying LESS in taxes than you are.

Class dismissed!

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on November 02, 2008 at 11:51 pm


Even if someone making $10 million per year is only paying 3%, he's still paying more than you make in a year if you are at the $100,000 level!  So, just for the hell of it, let's say that you at $100,000 pay 20% and the guy at $10 million who is hiding his money so he pays a mere 9%.  Sure, his percentage  of his income is smaller, but look at the real numbers here for a minute.

Deano:  $100,000 @ 20% = $20,000 (that's twenty thousand dollars)

Rich Guy: $10,000,000 @ 9% = $900,000 (that's nine hundred thousand dollars)

Please show me the math you use to prove that Rich Guy is paying less in taxes than you.  I want to use that same math to make my bank account larger because it's the same math our government must be using to keep functioning without money!

And yes, everyone pays the sales taxes you are talking about, but I wasn't referring to them because even Rich Guy pays those when he buys stuff.  I was talking solely about the income tax.  Please stop sleeping in class Mr. Category Five, your snoring is bothering the rest of the class.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on November 03, 2008 at 02:36 pm


I cannot believe that you are so smart and yet so stupid.  What's not fair about the guy making $10 million dollars paying FORTY FIVE TIMES MORE MONEY IN TAXES THAN YOU?  He is paying NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS in to the treasury and you're only paying TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.


What's unfair is people like you who think that $900,000 isn't enough in taxes and you think that you have to rape the rich even more.  I guarantee if you had a $900,000 per year tax bill, you wouldn't be complaining about the other $9.1 million in your bank account.  The shoe would be on the other foot as it were and you'd be calling Swifty the Accountant looking for as many tax shelters as he could find for you.  I wish I had a $900,000 income tax bill because the income that went along with it would mean I could give more money to my church so they could fix the leaking roof, repave the parking lot and increase the size of its community services project.  I could also give more money to other charities and I could help out my brother-in-law's ministry. 

Didn't think about all the good that gets done by those people paying $900,000 in taxes per year did you?  I say let them keep more of their money because they know better where it needs to go to help more people out.  They know that giving it to the government is throwing money down a rathole where is does nothing but employ another moronic bureaucrat whose job it is to tell the people looking for real assistance that they are not qualified because they made too much money last year before their company went bankrupt and they lost their job.

Sure not all people making $10 million are going to give away money to charity, but forcing them through higher taxes isn't fair either.  Again, you like to defer to Jesus, "the Lord loves a cheerful giver".  Money given begrudgingly is not acceptable in the eyes of God.

Are you saying that you would support the Fair Tax then?  Where everyone pays the same amount of money in the form of a national sales tax on everything?  How about a modified income tax system where everyone pays the same 30% across the board but you get no refund at the end of the year and no tax breaks (like the interest payments on your house or writing off investment losses)?

Just remember the person you work for has the money.  Take more of it away in taxes and you might find yourself without a job.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -2
By D. E. Carson on November 04, 2008 at 09:33 pm

And looking at the election returns on Fox News tonight it's looking like the days of self-reliance and hard work are about to come to an end in favor of staying home, being lazy, watching Doprah on TV and waiting for the government to send the monthly welfare check.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: -1
By D. E. Carson on November 05, 2008 at 11:42 pm

Nice thing about Windows, you can cut and paste.

And looking at the election returns on Fox News tonight it's looking like the days of self-reliance and hard work are about to come to an end in favor of staying home, being lazy, watching Doprah on TV and waiting for the government to send the monthly welfare check.

 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us