Posted on 09/11/2018 2:02:58 PM PDT by Starman417
The other day Jim Carrey said that America ought to embrace socialism.
We actually have experimented with socialism. It was called the obama administration.'Dumb and Dumber' actor Jim Carrey on Friday urged Democrats to “say yes to socialism” and embrace the attacks from Republicans.
“We have to say yes to socialism — to the word and everything,” Carrey said on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” show. “We have to stop apologizing.”
Obama came into office long aspiring to redistribute income.
First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” (Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy).Then America went ahead and elected him.Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments. Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.
Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.” Obama opines that the civil-rights movement’s court successes cannot be duplicated with respect to income redistribution: The “mistake of the civil rights movement was (that it) became so court focused” and “lost track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground…In some ways we still suffer from that (mistake)."
Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”
In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots.
"Obamacare" was a big step in the direction of income redistribution:
While many Americans are upset by ObamaCare’s $1 trillion price tag, Congress is contemplating other changes with little analysis or debate. These changes would create a massively unfair form of income redistribution and create incentives for many not to buy health insurance at all.
Let's start with basics: Insurance protects against the risk of something bad happening. When your house is on fire you no longer need protection against risk. You need a fireman and cash to rebuild your home. But suppose the government requires insurers to sell you fire "insurance" while your house is on fire and says you can pay the same premium as people whose houses are not on fire. The result would be that few homeowners would buy insurance until their houses were on fire.Obama has spread the wealth, but the poor and middle class haven’t benefited.The same could happen under health insurance reform. Here's how: President Obama proposes to require insurers to sell policies to everyone no matter what their health status. By itself this requirement, called "guaranteed issue," would just mean that insurers would charge predictably sick people the extremely high insurance premiums that reflect their future expected costs. But if Congress adds another requirement, called "community rating," insurers' ability to charge higher premiums for higher risks will be sharply limited.
One reading of the midterm election wave is that voters have concluded that President Obama’s answer to falling incomes and slow growth—higher taxes on the rich and more redistribution—is tapped out. These policies have been up and running for six long years but the middle class is no better off as a result.On taxes, Mr. Obama often claims that the rich don’t pay their “fair share,” yet the most affluent one-fifth of taxpayers on average supplied 68.7% of federal revenue for 2011. That’s according to the Congressional Budget Office, which last week updated its statistics on the U.S. distribution of income and taxes for 2011 and preliminary calculations for last year.
As for the top 1%, they funded 24% of everything the government does in 2011. The CBO also estimates that the end-of-2012 fiscal cliff deal that lifted the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6%, plus ObamaCare’s taxes on high-income individuals, increased their average federal taxes by 4.3 percentage points to 33.3% of income. The Warren Buffett minimum-tax rule asserted that no millionaire should pay an effective tax below 30%. Mission accomplished.
This has long been the reality of the highly progressive U.S. tax system, but the bigger news in the CBO numbers is that wealth is being spread with little to show for it. According to the CBO, the lowest 60% of earners all collect more in benefits on average than they remit to the Treasury. Yet even the supposed beneficiaries of Mr. Obama’s policies ended up with less in 2011 than 2007.Obama raised taxes bigly. Here's a list.
And regulatons? Whoa. obama added 20,642 of them.
The tide of red tape that threatens to drown U.S. consumers and businesses surged yet again in 2015, according to a Heritage Foundation study we released on Monday.All to make things fair. obama cemented his power via income redistribution:More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.
That’s a dollar for every star in the galaxy, or one for every second in 32 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net...
FDR?
Anyone who wants socialism should just move to North Korea.
a canadian mega-millionaire trying to tell the american middle class what’s good for them.
Jim Carrey: Dumber than Lloyd Christmas.
Maybe not full blown socialism, but America has been at least socialist lite since 1933.
Your theory is right but first try was called the Mayflower Compact created by the pilgrims enroute to the Mass colony all share equally in everything by the end of the 1st year they were starving so went to our present style of living we call democracy...
Boy, am I ever gonna steal the subject line!
I was going to write the same comment (perhaps not as succinctly as did you.)
Show people and Canadians, who seem so frequently to hate our great American Heritage, our wonderful traditions, our unparalleled system of representative government (including free and fair elections by CITIZENs), always want to tell us how to live our lives.
Non, merci!
It didn't work. If it didn't work with a few dozen true believers, it's certainly not going to work for whole countries.
If Jim Carrey was killed in an automobile accident shortly after the first Ace Ventura movie was released, he’d be remembered as a talented up-and-coming comedy actor that was cut down in his prime, instead of the braindead STD spreading tool he is known as now.
Obama versus the Nation
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/obama_vs_the_nation.html
Please share with others!!
Way before that! Ever hear of a heavy and progressive tax system, anyone?
He has no expertise in the area of economics whatsoever so should really just shut up and stop trumpeting his ignorance.
If he really likes Socialism, perhaps we can divide his property up and distribute it to the homeless?
Carey is THE physical comedian of his generation in league with Keaton and Lewis. But when he stops,clowing it ruins the effect
He’s actually not even that funny any more.
Personally for me he peaked on the TV show “In Living Color”.
Correct!
Everything reditributionists/socialists/communists wish to “redistribute” is produced by capitalism.
Actually we have a representative constitutional republic.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
No.
Roosevelt administration.
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.