|
Posted on 05/15/2007 8:30:25 AM PDT by Marathoner
TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED
Do you recognize that phrase? You should, it's a basic tenet of the communist philosophy. The full saying is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Now one of the first questions that might occur to you here is "Need as defined by whom?" By government, that's whom.
Why bring up old communist slogans? Communism is dead, right? We pretty much buried it back in 1989, didn't we! Well, you would have thought so, but it seems that some politicians just can't seem to resist dredging up old communist rhetoric when they feel it will help them in the polls. That brings us to Barack Obama. Barack, it seems, is starting to lose ground to Hillary in the latest polls ... and so he is now compelled to pull some typical Democrat tricks out of the bag.
Barack is a smart guy. He recognizes a sure winner when he sees one, and he knows winning rhetoric when he hears it. Remember .. this is the Democrat primary process, and that means that candidates have to appeal to the left-wing whacko moveon.org brigade of the Democrat party. Few things make these people happier than acknowledgement of their hatred and jealousy toward the evil rich.
Now just how do you curry favor with those suffering from wealth envy? Simple! You seize wealth from the envied and either give it to or spend it on the envious!
Now what we're talking about here, of course, is a tax increase on the rich. This is sure-fire stuff for Democrats. There is very little risk to promising to seize even more wealth from the rich ... just so long as you limit your plundering to a very small percentage of those at the top of the income-earning scale. That's why Barack Hussein Obama is now telling us that when he becomes president he is going to raise taxes on the rich ... but only the richest one percent!
Bear in mind here that Barack didn't actually use the phrase "raise taxes." Democrats know that they have a somewhat negative image as a party that is in love with the idea of raising taxes. This perception is strong among those who actually become successful enough that they might, at some point in the future, come to be considered wealthy. The marching orders are clear. Democrats are not to talk about raising taxes on the rich. They don't want to do anything to feed into this idea that they're in love with the idea of tax increases. The verbiage to be used by Democrat candidates is very specific. You are not to talk about tax increases, nor are you to discuss raising taxes. The only acceptable phraseology is that you are going to "roll back tax cuts for the rich."
Those of you who weren't victimized by government schools might have a hard time believing this, but there are a lot of Democrats out there who actually believe that "rolling back tax cuts for the rich" isn't the same thing as "raising taxes on the rich." Let's try this. Your boss gives you a raise. A year later he's in a bit of financial trouble so he decides that you are going to have to suffer a cut in pay. Let's also say that your boss is a Democrat. He calls you into your office and informs you that he is going to roll back that pay increase he gave you last year:
"You mean you're going to cut my pay?" "No, I'm not cutting your pay. I'm rolling back your last pay increase." "That's cutting my pay." "No it's not. We're just taking away your last increase." "You expect me to buy this 'it's not a pay cut' nonsense?" "Yes, we do. "What the hell do you think I am? A Democrat voter?" Wait ... there's more to Obama's rhetoric. Not only does he tell us that he is going to take more money from the rich, but he's going to do it because "they don't need it!' That's right! Obama actually said that it is OK to raise taxes --- er .... excuse me, I meant to say "roll back" the tax cuts for the rich --- because this is money the rich don't need!
What have we now learned about Barack Hussein Obama? We've learned that he believes that it is a proper role for the federal government to make some sort of a determination as to how much a specific person "needs." After the level of need is established, it is then perfectly OK in Obama's world to simply seize whatever is left over. Thus we arrive at the great communist slogan I mentioned a while back: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Barack's perfect government would seize property from those who have it, and then redistribute that property based on need. In Barack's world politicians take a long, hard and hungry look at someone who, through hard work and diligence, has managed to amass wealth, and then determine just how much of that wealth that person needs. The remainder is then subject to confiscation.
Now, in Neal Boortz's perfect world any politician who dares to suggest that the government should somehow pay the role of determining just how much of a person's personal property they actually "need," and then sets out to redistribute the remainder, is wholly unqualified to serve in any position of public trust or power whatsoever. With this "money they don't need" comment Barack Obama has shown himself to be a gaseous leftist windbag unworthy of consideration to any position of responsibility in this government.
Let's cut to the chase: Just who the hell does this anti-capitalist, power-hungry opportunist think he is to suggest that our government should determine what people "need" of their own earnings, and then merrily set about seizing the remainder? With his remarks Obama has shown a complete disdain for the very concept of private property and has dishonored the concept of individualism and hard work. He has demonstrated his believe that we do not, in fact, exist as individuals in this country, but as mere elements of a larger society which we are obligated to serve.
bttt
Don’t let her fool you — she’s just as much a socialist/communist as the rest of them.
Hillary sane? I’m not a fan of Dick Morris, but I wanted to hug him last night when brought up Hillary and the Commmunists.
Are you talking about Hillary “we’re going to have to take some things away from you for the common good” Clinton?
I noticed that Mark Levin also stated this on his radio show yesterday.
Be careful with that, Mrs. Bill Clinton is way more dangerous than Obama. He’s a lightweight with a fresh face and story who has a better chance of leading the Aryan Nation than he does of leading the United States.
Herself, on the other hand, is a committed Leftist and will—with a Democrat Congress—turn our country into a Sweden look-alike faster than you can say “Noam Chomsky”.
Or is it, Hillary “It takes all you taxpayers...er...a village...to raise a child” Clinton?
You're right, my bad. I'd forgotten that little gem.
Somebody needs to shout this loud and clear all over the country.
Thanks for posting this, I put this on a forum I’m a member of to show them what will happen if we vote for another Democrat. Thankfully I’m not the only Republican on said website.
You’re welcome. Unfortunately, living in the People’s Republic of Illinois, I get my fill of this guy on a pretty much daily basis.
Hey, take a look-see over here!
For the record, I NEED a cottage at Hilton Head, a chateau in Vail, and a Gulfstream to transport me back and forth. I’ll disclose more of my NEEDS as this policy nears implementation.
Just a small bite out of Osama Obama’s multi million dollar annual income stream would take care of my own relatively modest need. :)
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
