Obama Touts “Inclusive Capitalism”

Who didn’t see this coming? Business owners knew from the moment Obama told ol’ Joe the plumber that redistribution is good. Barack of Roanoke, we saw ye coming and have prepared.
You cannot ‘tax’ the rich no matter how hard you try.

especially the leftist rich who would flee to Davos in their private jets

capitalism Is inclusive

anybody can participate
many succeed, some fail, that’s the nature of life in the real world..but those that fail are free to try again and often people succeed on their second or third tries (as they acquire more knowledge and skill)

there is no more inclusive system ever invented on Rock Three,
than capitalism

(but as we are taught, those that are able but just too damned lazy or unwilling to work or try... shall not expect the rest of us to just give them a free ride....2 Thessolonians 3:10 comes to mind)

Obam complained about the “winner-take-all aspect of this modern economy” and the need to be “investing enough in the common good.”

"Common good"?

Our business is ag related and the future is looking increasingly bleak.
One thing I’m learning is that either you’re at the table or on the menu.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

I guess it’s just Obama’s way of politely saying that “we haven’t screwed things up enough already”.

The following link (also my tagline) is to a short book (written in 1939) about FDR’s New Deal. The book is called “Revolution Was” - how the New Deal WAS the Communist Revolution in America. Much of FDR’s quotes are VERY similar to Obama’s.

An Excerpt (a long excerpt, I tried , but it is ALL so good. The entire booklet is well worth the read - and so eerily similar to what Obama is doing. Although I guess it would be reasonable that Obama has studied FDR’s playbook:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts

For example, if the propagandist said, “Down with the Constitution!” — bluntly like that — he would be defeated because of the way the Constitution is enshrined in the American conscience.....

...but...which is a symbol He can ask: “shall the Constitution be construed to hold property rights above human rights?” Or, as the President did, he may regretfully associate the Constitution with “horse-and-buggy days.”

The New Deal’s enmity for that system of free and competitive private enterprise which we call capitalism was fundamental......

In Russia capitalism, such as it was there, could be attacked directly. The people were not attached to it in any way. In this country it was very different. Americans did not hate capitalism......

To have said, “Down with capitalism!” or, “Down with free private enterprise!” would have been like saying, “Down with the Constitution!” The attack, therefore, had to be oblique.

In his first inaugural address, March 4, 1933, the President said: “...the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return....

Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed,... have admitted their failure and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money-changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.... They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers.... Yes, the money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of that restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.”

There was the pattern and it never changed. The one enemy, blameable for all human distress.....The money-changer in the temple. This was a Biblical symbol and one of the most hateful with what modern symbol did this old and hateful one associate? With the Wall Street banker, of course; and the Wall Street banker was the most familiar and the least attractive symbol of capitalism.....

The old order became a symbol of all human distress. “We cannot go back to the old order,” said the President. And this was a very hateful counter symbol, because the old order, never really defined, did in fact associate in the popular mind with the worst debacle in the history of capitalism.

It was never the capitalist that was directly attacked. Always it was the economic royalist, the brigand of the skyscrapers, the modern tory — all three hateful counter symbols....

Thus, against the inviolability of private property was raised the symbol of those who would put property rights above human rights; and against all the old symbols of individualism and self-reliance was raised the attractive counter symbol of security.

To bring hatred to bear upon the profit motive there were two techniques. One was to say, as the President said in his first inaugural, that social values were more noble than mere monetary prost, as if in any free scheme you could have social gains without plenty of mere monetary profit; the other was to speak only of great profits, as if in a free profit and loss system you could have little profits and little losses without big profits and big losses.

It is not unnatural for people to think envious thoughts about large profits, and envious thoughts are very easy to exploit, as every demagogue knows. But no government before the New Deal had ever deliberately done it. In a home-coming speech to his Dutchess County neighbors, in August, 1933, the President explained why it had seemed necessary for the New Deal to limit personal liberty in certain ways. It was to make all men better neighbors in spite of themselves; and as if this were no new thing he said: “Many years ago we went even further in saying that the government would place increasing taxes on increasing profits because very large profits were, of course, made at the expense of the neighbors and should, to some extent at least, he used for the benefit of the neighbors.”

Large profit as such becomes therefore a symbol of social injury, merely because it is large; moreover, it is asserted that large profit had long been so regarded by the government and penalized for that reason.

Of all the counter symbols this was the one most damaging to the capitalistic system. Indeed, if it were accepted, it would be fatal, because capitalism is a profit and loss system and if profits, even very large profits, are socially wrong, there is nothing more to be said for it.

But it was a false symbol, and false for these three reasons, namely: first, there is no measure of large profit; second, large profits are of many kinds and to say simply that large profits are “of course made at the expense of the neighbors” is either nonsense or propaganda, as you like; and; in the third place, the history is wrong.

When the Federal government many years ago imposed a graduated income tax — that is, taxing the rich at a higher rate than the well-to-do and taxing the poor not at all, the idea was not that large profits or large incomes were gained at the expense of one’s neighbor, not that the rich were guilty because they were rich.

The idea was to impose taxes according to the ability to pay. The well-to-do could afford to pay more than the poor and the rich could afford to pay more than the well-to-do, and that was all.

What made it all so effective was that this was the American people’s first experience with organized government propaganda designed “to arouse hostile attitudes toward the symbols and practices of the established order” — and that, if you will remember, was the most precise definition of revolutionary propaganda that Lasswell and Blumenstock could think of in their scientific study of World Revolutionary Propaganda.

An excerpt of the main point from my above post:

“Large profit as such becomes therefore a symbol of social injury, merely because it is large; moreover, it is asserted that large profit had long been so regarded by the government and penalized for that reason.

Of all the counter symbols this was the one most damaging to the capitalistic system. Indeed, if it were accepted, it would be fatal, because capitalism is a profit and loss system and if profits, even very large profits, are socially wrong, there is nothing more to be said for it.”

Step One - use QE to buy up to 45-51% of publicly traded stocks (see Germany, Belgium, Holland, etc.).p

Step Two - Government will be a majority or have a veto on all large sales of stock (Remember in 2000-2001 when the Telecom Bandwidth was sold).p

Step Three - All corporations and employers will have to give 5 years unemployment upon termination of employees (thus the government employment figures look better).

I have read this before. As an example of what you posted, some ideals are enshrined in the conscience; Apple, Inc. just posted the largest profits in world history with no whimper from the left, however Oil cannot make more than 4-5% without being a political football.

Apple, Inc. just posted the largest profit in history and they are loved - thus enshrined in the conscience as good....