In a belated effort that makes people wonder whether CEO positions are hereditary, business leaders are finally realizing the oppressive nature of Marxism. Steve Wynn, Las Vegas based CEO in the hospitality business has finally noticed that the Obama doctrine is strangling business and investment, he is one of many Democrat businessmen speaking out against Obama and his Socialism.
During a conference call on Monday, Wynn called Obama:
“the greatest wet blanket to business, progress and job creation in my lifetime.”
Wynn a former fervent supporter of the Obama Myth, still considers himself a Democrat; but he and several others are breaking with tradition and speaking out politically in direct and blunt terms. He is now laying blame on Obama for the reluctance of businesses to invest in the current anti-business climate of Obama Socialism.
A lot of people don’t want to say that. They’ll say, ‘Oh God, don’t be attacking Obama.’ Well, this is Obama’s deal, and it’s Obama that’s responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe ‘we ought to do something to businesses that don’t invest or (are) holding too much money. We haven’t heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists.
Business is being hammered and I’m telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the president of the United States.
Wynn’s words are finding sympathetic ears among smaller businessmen and others who are puzzled over America’s weak economic growth and high unemployment.
The onus of blame is laid directly upon the inexperience of the president and his professor type advisors who have never functioned outside of academia and lack real world experience.
Wynn’s frustration echoes the statements of other influential business leaders:
• 3M’s George Buckley, who blasted Obama last February as anti-business. “We know what his instincts are,” Buckley said. “We’ve got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada or Mexico — which tends to be more pro-business — and America,” he told the Financial Times.
• Boeing’s Jim McNerney, who in the Wall Street Journal last May called Obama’s handpicked National Labor Relations Board’s suit against his company a “fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America’s competitiveness since it became the world’s largest economy nearly 140 years ago.”
• Intel’s Paul Otellini, who told CNET last August that the U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business that there is likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we’re seeing today in Europe — this is the bitter truth.”
• Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, who observed to radio host Hugh Hewitt last month that Obama “never had to make payroll,” that “nobody has ever created a job in this administration” and that the president is “surrounded by college professors.”
• GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, one of Obama’s biggest supporters, who hit out at the president last year. “Business did not like the U.S. president and the president did not like business,” the FT reported him saying. “People are in a really bad mood. We have to become an industrial powerhouse again, but you don’t do this when government and entrepreneurs are not in sync.”
• Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, another Obama backer, who blasted Obama’s bank tax in January 2010 as a “guilt tax,” once called Obama’s carbon tax idea “regressive” and this month denounced Obama’s obsession with corporate jets.
Other executives are speaking out on the toxic nature of Obama’s Socialism: Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Fox News, and Forbes, along with the former Obama supporter the Chamber of Commerce have voiced similar opinions. Without the leaders and companies of American business willing to invest in the future, the American economy will continue to falter and the American worker will languish in the despair of unemployment and a stagnant economy without “Hope” for the future.
Hopefully, the American voter has realized the futility of Marxism and its mantra of Redistribution of Wealth; otherwise, this country is doomed to four more years of poverty and despair under the guidance of Obama.
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
There is a long list of these wealthy social democratic supporters. The problem is the democratic party has gone bat sh** crazy with infiltrators and has turned into a Marxist socialist movement. Now that these businessman’s ox is being gored they are starting to pay attention. Too bad it took them this long to see just what obama was all about. If you support any democrat in this environment you are asking for redistribution of wealth.
Buff, I told my relatives that Obama would set back the Progressive Socialist movement twenty years, just after he was elected. They thought I was out to lunch and I wondered about the wisdom of such a radical statement; yet, it looks like that prophecy might be right on the money. We still have 15 more months under Obama Marxism and there is plenty of time for him to not only nuke his legacy, but the future of Socialism in America as well.
I had to laugh about the White House job creation summit held last fall. It was held like a university seminar where the instructor handed out assignments and the participants split into groups. The brainstorming began and the Job Creator In Chief left to do some irrelevant thing that he’s so capable of doing. He was going to pick up the results at day’s end. The seminar was composed of professors, union leaders, party hacks, White House czars, favored business types, and favored bankers. The results came in at day’s end and nothing was said in the MSM. I could place a bet that the results are in a secure place or that the shredder ate the homework. Complete and expensive waste of time.
This Democrat businessman likes him some rent-seeking. He thought he was purchasing a privileged economic position in a vibrant economy, but has been cheated out of what he paid for by the Democrat depression. It’s like getting a posh cabin on a garbage scow.
There is a need for people to be honest about their initiatives and there intentions with certain policies. Unfortunately the health care plan has made it so that many people cannot even afford adequate health insurance. Something seriously went wrong in the planning of that and I’m skeptical about this situation as well.
From Steve Wynn’s silly tirade; Charles Lane, in the Washington Post:
The constant sorrowful refrain from on high that Obama is killing business hardly seems to be supported by the recent performance of Wynn’s own business, nor by the massive increases in corporate profits that have continued quarter after quarter since the turn around following the 2008 crash. In that environment of burgeoning profits–where virtually all of the real national income increase associated with the recovery has gone into corporate pockets–they also got an extension of their high-end tax cuts. There’s also been an astonishing amount of money made by big players as a result of the resurgence of the stock market–a recovery that has also occurred in spite of Obama’s “business killing” policies.
When I consider the growing financial insecurity of mainstream America–the downward pressure on wages, the increasing job insecurity, the rising prices for basic necessities, the disappearing pension plans, the prospect of Social Security and Medicare being phased out–and then consider how very well things are going for those who are in control of the system, I can’t help but wonder what the hell people like Wynn actually want. How much is enough for them?
You’ve got your RINOS. I guess we’ve got our DINOS.
FAILURE, THERE IS NO OTHER WORDS,
and the DEMOCRATS are starting to come out, to expose it,
the rest still protect his failures, and will sink with him in the 2012 election.
thank you SKOOKUM FOR THE POST, VERY INFORMATIVE.
I remember when the recession hit Wynn.
He tried to cut hours rather than lay off employees.
He cut from 40 hour a week to 32 hours a week for almost all his employees.
That worked for a while.
Wynn also asked every well-paid employee to take a pay cut of 15%.
Redistribute the suffering.
Finally, in 2010, however, he laid off 3% of his workforce.
With that move Wynn also added a $20 surcharge per day per person who stayed in any of his resort hotels.
Like I wrote on another thread, the employees who are left are being more productive than they were before.
I imagine Wynn has also invested in more one-armed bandits which don’t need medical benefits, days off or even a paycheck.
Wasn’t it some CEO of Boeing in the 90s which declared that the company wasn’t an “AMERICAN” company any longer, but an international one?
Piss on all these multi-national CEOs. They make 100x their employees salaries and get HUGE bonuses when they FIRE AMERICAN WORKERS AND SEND THEIR JOBS OFF-SHORE.
Obama is a committed Marxist and by that, I mean he ought to be committed. Although that would give us President Biden. Oh noes!
Good post, Skook!
There’s not a thing in the world wrong with political criticism, but calling Obama’s policies “Marxist” is just as outrageous as calling Bush’s policies “fascist.” Can we at least be accurate in our choice of critical labels?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Really?
His wont to redistribute wealth is, what? Democratic? Episcopalian? Rotarian?
I am sure that you will find it is a plank of Marxism/Communism.
Obama has managed to get Democrats and Republicans to completely agree.
In Michigan the entire congressional delegation signed a letter to Obama.
Detroit Free Press
So, even the Dems of Michigan don’t like the socialism of Obama.
@antics (#12): There’s a difference between Marxism and progressive taxation and support for safety nets. If you evaluate Obama’s actual policies, in sum total they are to the Right of David Cameron and Stephen Harper (both conservatives), to the Right of Richard Nixon, and arguably to the Right of Teddy Roosevelt.
I’m in favor of progressive taxation. For that matter, Adam Smith was in favor of progressive taxation. I’m in favor of progressive taxation, because the higher on the economic food chain, the greater the debt to government in achieving that higher position.
The tax proposals of Obama are less onerous to wealthy people than those of Bill Clinton. His health care program was designed by Mitt Romney, Chuck Grassley, and Bob Dole.
Call him a liberal. Call him a progressive. But it’s dishonest to claim that his policies as President have been those of a socialist, much less a Marxist.
It’s not helpful to dilute the meaning of strong words. There are differences between liberalism/progressivism, socialism, Marxism, and Communism. It’s not helpful to lump all these terms together — to blur the distinctions. It’s like saying that yellow is the same thing as blue, because both of them are shades of green.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Nan (#13): Every voting member of the Michigan congressional delegation voted in favor of the automobile company bailouts. Republicans and Democrats again united.
– Larry
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Sorry, Larry, but that statement is pure BS. For the most part, I respect your position on taxation, and in particular, progressive taxation, as your advocation for higher tax rates is based almost entirely on increased revenue, and includes going back to Clinton-era tax rates for ALL. But that statement above shows the mistaken attitude of liberal/progressives, in that it essentially states that government is responsible for a person’s economic well-being, so they, the government, has a right to take a portion of it. That is patently false for the overwhelming majority of those who do well financially. And, in many cases, people do well financially in spite of the government.
That you would believe what you wrote is sad, as it means, basically, that you believe yourself a subject of the government, and owe them for your allowing you to be so fortunate. You’ve already given in to the slave/serf mentality the liberal/progressives wish people to have.
As always, Skook is dead on with his assessment of comrade Obama!
The man is the epitome of evil in any sense when it comes to not only his hatred of his country and its ideals, but also his complete lust for power. As stated in the Detroit Free Press, ‘Obama is insisting that the debt ceiling extension be large enough to ensure that the issue does not arise again until after the 2012 elections…” one definitely gets the impression that his only concern is keeping his position long enough to finish delivering us to his Leftist Soviet Style handlers! And make no mistake about this! The man is a hard left Socialist and a wanna be dictator!
Every action he takes, every word he, his wife and his cohorts utter, every obstruction he and his lackeys put out there (let’s not forget the impeachable offense now being orchestrated by Bozo and his A.G. as to Project Gun Runner), every openly blatant lie to the electorate and every cave in to the Radical Islamic fundamentalists in supporting his open hatred for Israel and in my eyes the Jewish race in general combined with his complete disregard for our basic principles just reinforces the perception of his Socialist, dictatorship style way of governing. Mix that with an ineptness that makes Jimmy Carter look like a saint and you have the recipe for the disaster that is now facing us.
And let’s not forget so many of the brain dead electorate who not only refused to do their homework on this idiot, but in fact still support him! Hell, the majority of Jews here in the states will would supposedly vote for him again, someone who is open in his hostility towards them! And let’s not forget the likes of Hanoi Jane, Comrades Harry and Nancy and the rest of the entrenched political scum of both parties who are more than willing to bury this great country for their own power lust!
There is a lot of blame to spread here,! This man’s purpose in life is to destroy this country as we know it. He expressed this in his books, his associations with radicals of any ilk and most of all in almost every action he has taken in his so called leadership roles points to this one sad conclusion. It is there for all to see. why we even pay lip service to this abomination of a so called leader is beyond my comprehension!
@John (#16): I run a small business. Since 1992, I’ve hired about 50 different people — all of them educated in public schools, and my technical and billing employees educated in public universities (save for one who graduated from Stanford and another who graduated from Johns Hopkins; although each of these graduated from public high schools). I attended public schools, a public college, and a public medical school. I did post-graduate training at the NIH in Bethesda, which is another government institution. My work depends on discoveries made and products produced through publicly funded basic and applied research and development. I depend on government supported infrastructure, including ground, sea, and air transportation, the internet, and government regulated telecommunications. I depend on police and fire and paramedics, not only to protect me but to protect the employees on whom my livelihood depends. I own a commercial building, financed with an SBA loan guarantee. I hold two patents and have 5 more pending, and I depend on Federal and State governments to protect my intellectual property and business contracts, through their court systems. The Social Security and Medicare safety nets made it possible for me and my wife to risk everything at age 45 and cash in our IRAs and kids’ college funds and take out home equity lines of credit (on both principle residence and investment real estate) and put everything into our start up business. I knew that we could lose it all and somehow still be able to get by in our old age. During this time, both of my parents were retired, but I didn’t have to support them, because of social security and Medicare, which made it possible for me to invest all of my money in my business.
I depend on publicly educated clients who owe their own debts to government to be sufficiently successful so that that they have the money to be able to afford to purchase my services. The same thing would go for all so called “self made men,” including artists who need art lovers with discretionary income or real estate agents who need clients who can afford upscale houses.
Try to think of an example of a true “self made man.” How about someone who goes off into the wilderness to hunt for gold? He depends on government. How about someone who hunts for shipwrecks with lost treasure on the high seas? He depends on government. And the higher on the economic food chain, the dependence on government is multiplicative, as illustrated by my own example.
So wealthy people should pay more to government, because they owe more to government.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
How so?
@antics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
So Adam Smith was also a Marxist.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Oh, good grief. Stop it with the Adam Smith stuff. We’ve been over that over and over again.
While economists may indee claim all sorts of things about Smith, what’s important is what Smith himself said.
All one needs to do is read his own words to discover that he thought income taxes (of all types) to be “absurd and destructive”.
In fact, Smith had much to say about his opposition to income taxes and he went into great detail as to why. Perhaps reading The Wealth of Nations (all five volumes) would help. Until then, some snippets for you:
Pretty clear, eh?
Partial quotes, out of context, don’t always tell the entire story. Here’s the entirety of what Smith had to say directly from Smith himself. Note that he is speaking of taxes on house rents (property taxes), not income taxes:
@Aye: I’m going to post a quotation from a very conservative economics website (Heartland Institute). It’s the best, clearest explanation of Adam Smith’s positions on taxes that I’ve been able to find.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/13530/Adam_Smith_on_Taxes.html
Back to Aye: There are two separate issues under consideration here. First, given that government requires revenue, what are the preferred sources of revenue? It’s obvious that Adam Smith didn’t like taxes on wages, but he has no problem with taxes on income, per se — as evidenced by the very quote which you cite, to wit:
nb: 4:03 PM PDT: I’ve edited the following section to correct an obvious error I made.
Smith is not opposed to income tax, per se, but he is opposed to taxes on wages and profits. However, this is a separate issue from the form of taxation to be applied (“flat” versus “progressive,” where Smith clearly favors progressive taxation, as explained in the Heritage Institute article I cited above).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
hi,, I think you are associating what you receive from GOVERNMENT WHICH YOU
MENTIONED BEING DEPENDENT ON
YES , AGAIN I think that in your mind the GOVERNMENT is OBAMA,
and no other PRESIDENT COULD GIVE YOU THE HELP YOU NEED ALONG WITH THE OTHER YOU MENTIONED WHO DEPEND ON THE GOVERNMENT,
THAT IS THE WRONG TWISTED WAY TO MAKE OTHER BELEIVE THE SAME HELP THEY GET IS FROM
OBAMA, and that is why they are clinging on OBAMA ,no matter what negative they would hear from,
THE REALITY FOR ALL TO KEEP IN MIND IS THE GOVERNMENT COMPRISE OF AGENCYS WHO HAVE DIFFERENT TASK AND ONE IS TO HELP AND PROVIDE MONEYS REGARDLESS OF WHO IS THE PRESIDENT, IT ALL COME WITH THE TICKET, AND THE ONLY ABUSE OF THE MASSIVE OVER SPENDING FROM THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE THAT IS NOW CHALLENGED,
BUT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT GOING TO CURT THE WELFARE CHECKS ON ANYONE ,
HE JUST WANT TO SCARE THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT, AND THIS IS TERRIBLE TO USE THE MOST VULNERABLE LIKE HE DID FOR HIS SELFISH GAIN TO GET THE RAISE OF THE DEBT OVER THE CEILING,
IT IS A FIRST TIME A PRESIDENT DID THAT, IN ALL THE CENTURY OF THE NATION,
HOW LOW CAN A PERSON GO, AND THAT IS THE MARXIST LAW
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You completely ignored the point I made in proving that Karl Marx had as one of his ten planks of Communism, a progressive income tax.
So you tried to say, in essence, “But Adam Smith liked progressive income taxes!!”
Besides being wrong, what does that have to do with the point I made about Karl Marx?
Looks like somebody is confusing what Smith said about property taxes with what they believe in about income taxes.
You can cut it any way you want, Larry, but a progressive tax is Marxist. How you can say that Obama is not a socialist is beyond me.
Remember what he said about having too much wealth?
This is what his prepared remarks were:
This is what he said, emphasis mine:
Nah, he isn’t a socialist.
.
.
@antics: What he may believe in his heart of hearts and what policies he’s followed as President are two different things. Do you think that Mitt Romney is as personally conservative as the policies he currently espouses? It’s obvious that Boehner would not have a problem with raising tax rates, as part of a “balanced” debt reduction plan. But he’s not going to go along with this. What counts are actions and not words. Obama’s actual actions have been on the conservative side of liberal/progressive — just mainstream Democratic policies; they haven’t been socialistic and they sure haven’t been Marxist — any more than Bush’s or Reagan’s policies were “fascist.”
I’m just asking for truth in labeling, in the furtherance of serious discussion.
With regard to a progressive tax being “Marxist,” probably Marx liked to drink beer and eat potatoes, which would make beer drinking and potato eating “Marxist,” as well. You can’t define Marxism on the basis of a single point of view, on a single issue, favored by legions of economists and politicians who are most certainly not Marxists. I’m sure that there are legions of true red Republicans who agree with the concept of progressive taxation and who would only quibble about rates and deductions. For example, the 2008 GOP platform favored giving taxpayers the choice between the present tax system or a simplified two-tiered tax system. Both of these are progressive tax systems, which differ only in degree. According to your definition, this is a Marxist platform plank. Where in the world of economics does it say that the only capitalists are those who favor flat taxes?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You know, it really gets tiresome discussing Smith with you over and over because you completely and clearly ignore Smith’s own words and, instead, move right back into what other people say about him.
It matters not what any economist or anyone else claims that Smith said or believed.
What matters is what Smith said he believed.
As of now I haven’t seen any quotes from Smith which state one way or the other what his positions were regarding the taxation of income outside of wages and profits. (There wouldn’t have been much above and beyond wages and profits in Smith’s day would there?)
The partial quote you used was related to the taxation of property usage ie the rental of houses.
Not necessarily. From your own source above:
Since I pointed out the flaw in your argument regarding using what someone else says that Smith believed rather than Smith’s own words, it’s really not fair of me to use your own source material against you.
Instead, I will invite you to peruse Smith’s writings and post what he actually wrote regarding the taxation of profits specifically as well as income (outside of wages and profits).
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Wow.
Do you see pink elephants too?
@Aye (#26):
Firstly, I previously corrected the misstatement on Smith’s position on profit taxes at 4:03 PM PDT. Your post was made at 4:36 PM PDT.
You are providing your own interpretation of Smith’s words. i.e. that the principle of progressive taxation only applies to the single example of rent collections. This is your own personal interpretation. However, people who have studied Smith’s life and writings conclude that “Equity, according to Smith, requires progressive taxation.”
There really are two separate issues, as I noted. First, what are the preferred sources of tax revenue? Second, what should be the structure of taxation? Smith’s words were entirely clear:
Smith clearly supports the concept that the rich should pay a disproportionately large share of taxes. This is not simply my interpretation, but the interpretation of economic scholars who’ve studied the totality of Smith’s life and writings. I’ve cited a very credible, prominent, mainstream conservative economic source. As opposed to simply providing your own personal take on Smith’s writings, perhaps you could direct me to a scholarly discussion which supports your point of view.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye (re: pink elephants). What was the point of #27? I would have expected a rejoinder from you which directly contradicted my statement, e.g. pointing to a pattern of legislation (or even a single piece of prominent legislation, either passed and signed into law or proposed) which is sufficient to contradict my stated point of view that Obama’s actual policies have been to the Right of those of Harper, Cameron, Nixon, and T. Roosevelt.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Obama’s main mentor from 1971 – 1979 was Frank Marshall Davis. Who was he?
What about Obama’s father?
Obama admits attending socialist conferences and reading Marxist literature. He stated that he “chose his friends carefully… the Marxist professors… we were resisting resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints.”
Barack Obama’s older brother, Abongo “Roy” Obama is a militant Marxist Muslim who has made a pact with a hard-line Islamic group in Kenya to establish Shari’a law. Barack calls his brother “the person who made me proudest of all.” – Source
Let’s not forget his Alinsky oriented, community organizing days in Chicago. Alinsky’s own son confirmed that Obama was an avowed Alinsky-ite.
Additionally, we would be remiss to discount his immersion for 20 years in Black Liberation Theology, which has its roots in Marxism.
Now to his actions since being in office:
* Having the state take control of industries – namely a large portion of the auto industries, the banking industry, and of course the health care industry via Obamacare.
* Taking state control of higher education via the nationalization of the student loan process.
* Taking assets away from private entities, via bastardizing and outright ignoring of federal bankruptcy laws as regards the auto industry bailout of Chrysler and GM.
* His insistence on increasing taxes on the rich. Except that he classifies the rich as anyone making $200,000 a year.
* The vast number of socialist/Marxist/Communists that he as appointed to positions in his administration; Van Jones, Anita Dunn and don’t forget the Apollo Alliance who crafted the enviro-statist sections of the stimulus bill.
I mean, really Larry, does a house have to fall on your head before you realize the Marxist roots and Marxist actions of this president?
.
.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You forget one very important aspect, Larry. While government provided those opportunities to people, such as the opportunity to be educated, it was their DESIRE to become educated that is the reason your employees are successful, or the reason your clients are successful enough to frequent your business.
Government has provided the opportunity for people to be successful, but without a person’s work ethic, desire to become educated, will to make their life better, and their own vision of how to get there, all the education or government programs in the world will not make that so. If what you believe is true, then there would be no “poor”, or undereducated in our society.
As I stated, and stand by it, you have given in to the slave/serf mentality, thanking your “masters” for all that you have. In so doing, you have shortchanged your own will and desire to succeed and make a better life for your family. It’s very hard for me to believe that an otherwise thoughtful and intelligent person such as yourself would do that to themself.
#31
That’s exactly where some of us worry that ever lower high-end tax rates, stagnating wages, and the methodical elimination of long-standing progressive social programs will be taking us. People who advocate such things already seem to believe that those who would benefit the most from it are responsible for creating everything; that they are who we should all be thanking. I’d rather not have them for masters. In matters controlled by government, I at least have a vote.
@Greg:
Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich! Your one note theme is getting very old, Greg. The point I was making to Larry is that government is not responsible for a person’s success, or failure. They are only responsible for setting up the opportunity for a person to succeed. The rest comes from the individual’s own desire and will.
And, you do have a vote with businesses. It’s called voting with your pocketbook, and in many cases, is much more effective than a vote for a politician.
So,
Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA , you seem to think someone who is making the big green owes the govt since they govt made the environment possible for that person.
Question of the day is:
Do you take tax cuts/breaks or do you pay the full amount no deductions?
Do you just write that check since you’ve taken full advantage of govt programs to make money???
Do you like “your” money going to programs for people who don’t want to work, who have no desire to work but want to take the money you’ve made using quasi-welfare programs for bidness???
My tax dollars have helped you, so I’m sure you don’t mind your tax dollars helping the wino down the street.
So do you pay your fair share that I helped you make?????
@John:
You are distorting my position. I’ve never stated nor implied that the government gets all the credit for anyone’s success. Where do you get this “masters” stuff? I never said that the government was my “master.” What I said was that all entrepreneurs benefit from a whole lot of things which government provides. I gave specific examples. The concept that wealthy people owe more to government than poor people isn’t “B.S.,” as you called it. It’s not just the delusion of loony liberals. I quoted the Heartland Institute, for goodness sake. You might not agree with me and you might not agree with the Heartland Institute, but it would be helpful to acknowledge that there are thoughtful conservatives who don’t agree with your point of view and who agree with my point of view.
Your point of view is perfectly legitimate. I don’t agree with it, but I do understand your point of view.
@dukenukem: My tax returns are none of your business.
@antics:
You state:
State control of banking, auto, education:
Your point would be meritorious if Obama seized and nationalized industries. He did nothing of the sort. There was never any intention for the government to take over banks, auto companies, educational institutions. Paulson and Bush made the initial, massive bailouts of both financial and auto industries. Of course this money wasn’t a gift. That would have been irresponsible. The money went in; a lot of the money got paid back. The time when the government had a majority position was temporary. There is absolutely nothing in Obama’s background or actions which indicates that he favors government ownership of banks or private companies.
With respect to “government control” of health care, why can’t you acknowledge that the original architects of ObamaCare were GOP Senators Grassley and Dole. Why don’t you accuse them of being “Marxists?”
“State control of higher education.” Oh, come on now. He did nothing of the sort. The government has always made student loans. They used to pay banks to administer these loans. In order to SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY, Obama cut out the middle men. He didn’t forbid banks from loaning their own money to students. They are free to do that. All Obama did was to stop paying commissions to middlemen. There is no increased level of “state control” of higher education. It’s an outrageous mischaracterization.
“Insistence on increasing taxes on the rich.” This is simply progressive taxation. Adam Smith was in favor of progressive taxation, as explained by the conservative Heartland Institute economist I cited. Obama proposed allowing the Bush tax cuts on the rich to sunset. This would simply bring their tax level back to where it was in the 1990s. Today, there taxes are at historical lows. Congress voted for the tax cuts on the condition that they sunset. Obama is not a Marxist because he supported allowing them to sunset. I am critical of Obama (and Democrats in general) for not supporting allowing all the Bush tax cuts to sunset, but Obama ran on a platform of allowing only tax cuts on the rich to sunset, and he won the election. So he’s just keeping a campaign pledge.
Progressive taxation is not “Marxist,” simply because Marx was in favor of progressive taxation. The Republican Party’s official 2008 platform called for progressive taxation, rather than for a flat tax. Obama’s proposed tax hikes for the rich would still leave their tax levels at historical lows, considering all taxes (income, estate, payroll, self-employment, etc.). This is not Marxist.
As for Van Jones, here’s what Politifact said:
You call Anita Dunn a Marxist because of what? Because she quoted Chairman Mao? Well; so did John McCain. Same sort of quote. So McCain is a Marxist, also?
“Vast numbers” of socialists, Marxists, Communists (your words)? And the two best examples you can come up with are Van Jones and Anita Dunn?
The Apollo Alliance has been endorsed by Republicans for Environmental Protection, as well as myriad mainstream labor, environmental, and business groups. John Huntsman will be the Keynote Speaker at the Republicans for Environmental Protection banquet, later this week. Yes, I know that you guys will say that the REP is not a true conservative group — but neither are they socialists or Marxists and they certainly wouldn’t endorse an organization which was promoting of socialist or Marxist or Communist ideology. This is just another example of false labeling, for the express purpose of demonizing.
Obama’s actual policies are to the Right of Harper, Cameron, Nixon, and T. Roosevelt. By American political standards, Obama’s policies (and he actually campaigned and won the election, publicly supporting these policies) classify him as mainstream liberal/progressive; they do not classify him as socialist/Marxist/Communist.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim
so you support and protect the DEMOCRATS, AND YOU DON’T CONDOM THE SPENDING ERATICLY
responsible for having meetings after meetings to now find a solution, for the ceiling debt,
you support their denial to their responsibility to use the tax money of AMERICANS WORKING HARD TO ACHIEVE A DECENT LIVING, in this slow economic times, don’t you think the rich is not participating in the AMERICAN DREAM ENOUGH, when you start to calculate what they are doing with their money,
would you think that the UNIONS SHOULD PARTICIPATE MORE IN THE WELFARE OF AMERICA INSTEAD OF BLOCKING THE OTHER RICHS FROM DOING THE BUSYNESS THEY WANT TO DO BUT ARE RESTRAINED BY UNIONS, WHICH THOSE UNIONS ARE MAKING A LOT MORE MONEY THAN THE COMPANIES AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IS IN IT MARXIST AND COMMUNIST TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT SUPPORT THEM SO BLINDLY,SO TO CLOSE THEIR EYES ON THE DANGER OF THEIR HAVING SUCH CONTROL IN THE WORK FORCE,
LETS FACE IT,they should clean up their act at the base and restrained their spending spree
which is done without smart control, before asking the companies to support them more than they are doing,, and they are not to blame for the mismanagement of a government who is irresponsible,
wihich you blinly support because you have access to the largesse,
wich companies dont have, they only have regulation and probes putting screws in their wheels,
on the name of environment safe new trend which the GOVERNMENT AGENCIES USE TO
DISCOURAGE THE ECONOMY TO GROW .
don’t you find the danger of re living the past someday by not seing the dangers of today’s power game
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, I just pointed out what I, and many other people, see when we read or hear comments like that.
You listed nearly every aspect about your business, and what “allowed” you to start it, and become successful, and attributed all of that to government. And you didn’t have to use the term “master”. It’s the idea itself, that your success, or other people’s success, is dependent upon a benevolent government, that makes the terms master and serf/slave appropriate. The way I read it, your comments would have one believe that without the benevolence of government, a person couldn’t become successful, so that in becoming successful, people owe government for that. Whether you attributed ALL credit to government, or even just a part, is inconsequential to the matter.
Government, by it’s very nature, limits success, or places impediments to success, in people’s lives. They don’t “allow” a person, or people, to be successful. They don’t hold a person’s hand as they climb the ladder of success.
@John:
I gave specific examples. You are speaking in slogans.
It would further the discussion if you would go through at least some of the examples I gave and explain how I got it wrong.
The one example you gave was education. You said words to the effect that people should get the credit for pursuing their own educations. But in Adam Smith’s discussion of what he felt was a legitimate role for government, he specifically included education. Granted, there are people who can afford to attend private schools, but very few people have entirely private educations for which they, themselves, pay. Businesses depend on both educated workers and educated consumers, who, by virtue of their educations, can achieve the financial success necessary to generate sufficient income to buy products. This effect is multiplicative, the higher on the economic food chain, as I pointed out.
This doesn’t make government anyone’s master, but it does mean that all successful people owe a debt to government for a portion of their success and therefore should shoulder their fare share of the tax burden — again, as advocated by Smith. I don’t see how you can claim otherwise. I gave numerous other specific examples.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
No, I am speaking to a general idea. That is, the idea that government doesn’t make the person. A person makes himself, and this is true whether they be successful, or when they fail, or anywhere in between.
I made my point very clearly in #31, Larry. While government may provide opportunity to people to people, and indeed, set up equal opportunity for all, government is not the reason, sole or otherwise, that a person becomes successful.
No, what I said, and meant, was that a person is responsible for their own education. They decide how well they do, how hard they work to learn(notice I didn’t say “get good grades”). People decide whether or not to pursue a higher education after HS. Government deserves credit for the fact that there CAN be highly educated people, but not that there actually IS highly educated people. Again, it’s opportunity, which the government is responsible for, and the actual achievement itself, which is entirely dependent upon the person.
While I agree that businesses depend on educated workers, the consumer part is irrelevant. And, as far as the workers goes, a business makes it’s own decision on who to hire. And the people they hire have shown, by their education, or previous work experience(also a form of education), whether or not they will benefit the company by being hired. And all of that, regarding a potential worker, is of their own doing, not the government. Again, the government may have provided the opportunity for that potential worker to become educated enough for the job, but it is the person who achieved that education.
And multiplicative? The only reason that that is somewhat true is because of the opportunity government provides for people, not because government is the reason for those people.
It’s people who believe, as you do, that allow government to become their master. It is easily seen in those people who adhere to the “victim” mentality, or those who attribute their failures to someone else, but it is also seen in people like yourself, who attribute your success to government. And it’s all part of the general idea that government is responsible for the outcomes in people’s lives, hence your willingness to attribute your success to government, and for other people to attribute their failures to anyone, or thing, but themselves.
Specific examples of such is irrelevant, but I could walk down the street in my town and point out people who are successful, and people who have failed, and all have had the same opportunity. Some just CHOSE to take advantage of those opportunities, and coupled that with the will and desire to succeed, and thus, have succeeded.
Free men choose their own path in life. Only slaves and serfs can attribute their lot in life to someone other than themselves, or, their “masters”.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Examination of that entire passage (Smith’s actual words rather than someone’s interpretation) reveals what his meaning is. He wasn’t speaking in some sort of ancient code that is not readily understandable by an ordinary 21st century person.
If I wanted to know what a certain cancer doctor/researcher in California believed about something, would I be better off to actually read what said doctor has written? Or would I be better off to read commentary from others regarding the beliefs of said doctor?
I think you and I both know the answer.
Again, I would ask that you read and quote Smith directly and in context because he is far too often selectively and/or misleadingly quoted by those who are trying to prove whatever their point is. What you find people saying about Smith’s beliefs is most definitely not always what Smith believed.
Here’s what David Friedman, and economist, has to say about your point of view regarding the progressive tax question:
Well, sort of. He argued both for and against multiple means of providing education.
Friedman again:
@Aye (#40): First, thanks for the truly thoughtful and excellent reply. This is exactly the sort of discussion which I relish.
In your quote of Friedman, he’s not referring to the same quotation which you and I are discussing. He’s referring to the following quotation and really offering it up as a straw man:
But elsewhere Adam Smith says that the rich should not only pay in proportion but in excess of that, to wit:
Now, you keep quibbling that the latter quote appears in a discussion of rental income and not wages and not business profits — taxes on which Smith feels are inefficient.
As stated by the Heartland Institute Conservative economist I quoted:
Now, let’s look at Smith’s four types of taxes. Rents from land are clearly income. Back in early 19th century England, these rents were a much more important source of income than in today’s America. Common people didn’t own land. Even rich people often didn’t own land. Farmers rented their land; they did not own it. Shopkeepers didn’t own their land and shops. People lived in rented houses. People who ran factories often did not own their land or buildings. So it’s wrong to say that Smith didn’t favor income taxes. He did. He didn’t favor taxes on wages or taxes on profits, not because he considered these to be inherently evil, but because he considered them to be inefficient.
The two forms of taxes he favored were taxes on rental income (as noted, a very much more important source of total national income back in early 19th century England than today in 21st century America) and “taxes that would fall “indifferently” or equiproportionately on all three factors of production” — the latter being what we’d today call a sales or value added tax.
Obviously, there’s no efficient way of turning a sales tax into a progressive tax. The buyer is supposed to produce his equivalent of a W2 form for every purchase? But, even here, Smith tried to avoid making a sales tax into a regressive tax, for example, he “excluded basic necessities such as wooden shoes and vegetables from taxable consumption.”
In the case of the other major tax source of which Smith approved as being efficient (a tax on rental income) he clearly and specifically favored a progressive tax.
As I’ve explained several times, there are two different issues which you (Aye) are conflating. The first is what forms of taxation are more efficient. The second is whether taxes ought to be flat or progressive. Adam Smith clearly favored progressive taxation on income, as clearly explained by the Heartland Institute conservative economist I quoted above.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You said:
Really? Then why does he want to convert the preferred stocks obtained by TARP into common stocks?
http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2009/04/23/obamas-socialist-tendancies-converting-preferred-stock-to-common-stock/
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/04/20/nationalizing-the-banks-stock-conversion-may-backfire/
You said:
They were early, abeit wrong advocates of the individual mandate. They were wrong when they proposed it and they are wrong now. If you can point to other actions that show them to be Marxists, I will be happy to discuss it.
You said:
Really?
This was from before it passed, but as we all know Obama had it slipped into Obamacare.
You said:
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Adam Smith was never in favor of one of the main planks of Communism. Aye refuted that and you refuse to admit it.
Taxes are at an all time low?? Yeeeahhh riiiggghhhtt.
The top 10% of income earners in the United States pay the biggest share of the taxes. I wrote an article about it, here.
Van Jones is an self-avowed member, albeit a former member of the Communist Party.
Anita Dunn didn’t just quote Mao, she said he was one of her personal heroes. Also, her willingness to control the media, something she freely admitted to, shows her Marxist tendencies.
Yes, I named those two as examples of who Obama surrounds himself with. They were off the top of my head.
Here is a bit more (but not fully) complete list:
* Carol Brower
* Mark Lloyd
* Cass Sunstein
* Ed Montgomery
* Cameron Davis
* Aneesh Chopra
* Ashton Carter
* Gary Samore
Hell he even had a flag with Che Guevera’s picture on it in his campaign headquarters!
You failed to address his father, his mentor, his preacher and his other early life immersion in Marxism and Black Liberation Theology.
Hard to argue against the facts, I guess.
@antics:
Your numbers relating wealth of the top 10% to share of total economy are not correct. Or else this is an apples and an oranges sort of duel. I’m not sure.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
“Top 10% have 33% of market share on income?” Define “income.” Adjusted gross income, or what? I’d like to continue the discussion, but I need to understand your data.
The top ONE PERCENT have 43% of the financial wealth! The bottom EIGHTY PERCENT have 7% of the financial wealth! I had my numbers correct. Taxes on the rich are at historical lows, considering all taxes. And where do you get this “evil rich” stuff? You are the one trying to ignite a class war, not me. Again, I don’t agree with simply sunsetting the top end rates. I advocate shared responsibility and shared sacrifice to get our nation’s financial health in order.
Obama proposed restoring taxes on those making more than $200K to those of the Clinton era 1990s — basically just allowing the Bush tax cuts to sunset, as they were originally supposed to do (in order to secure the votes to pass them). This isn’t socialist, Marxist, or Communist.
As far as Adam Smith, you agree with Aye, who quotes a guy who has degrees in chemistry and physics, who’s a law professor in a third rate law school running his own personal blog, and who takes a single out of context quote from Smith to create a straw man, as opposed to considering the totality of Smith’s writings, life, and work. I quoted a Heartland Institute conservative economist, who’s views on Smith are squarely in the mainstream. I explain all of this in #41.
You call Obama a Marxist, based on objectively bogus criteria, and you defend this by giving a list of people whom you also call Marxist, based on similar bogus criteria. I don’t have time to go through your list and research all of them. I did so for Van Jones and Anita Dunn. You claim that Obama put up (i.e. “had”) a photo of Che Quevera in his campaign headquarters? Source? As if you couldn’t go through a random conservative command center and find that someone temporarily hung up a Confederate battle flag or whatever. That’s simply gotcha politics.
.
I had similar “early life immersion” in Conservative Republicanism. So this makes me a Conservative, I suppose, by your reasoning. President Obama never even knew his father, who left the future President and said future President’s mother before said President’s first birthday.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
P.S. (antics): not ignoring your other points;will address when able. – larry
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: First of all, my facts are not wrong RE: the article I wrote about the top 10% of income earners. I linked my source, it is the OECD.
I will leave it to Aye to defend his source, but I read the entire Smith passage and it is clear that you are taking one sentence of said passage and quoting it out of context.
As for the list of Marxists that he has in his admin, well you can say that my criteria is bogus, but when they are all on record espousing Marxist beliefs, what other conclusion is there to draw?
Obama believes in redistributing wealth, which is a key Marxist belief. He believes in a big, centralized government, which is also a key Marxist belief. He is constrained by the Constitution, but he does ignore that every chance he gets.
Are there gulags? No.
Are there “dissidents” in prison? No.
Does that mean that Obama is not a Marxist? No.
RE: the Che pic – A local Fox affiliate first broke the story and WND then also did a story on it.
openid.aol.com/runnswim.
you know, you cannot accuse anticsrocks of lying, or any other CONSERVATIVES, THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH and only the libs who come here are fabricating storys because they fail to see what come in their face,
what about he hate ISRAEL, DON’T YOU NOTICE THAT, AND WHAT ABOUT HELPING THE MUSLIMS GET STRONGER TO WE KNOW BE ABLE TO OUTNUMBER THE FORCES OF ISRAEL DOESN’T IT HIT YOU IN YOUR FACE AS REAL INTENT TO WEAKEN ALLIES of AMERICA !! BECAUSE THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE FIGURE THEM UP A LONG TIME AGO, and are the first to connect the dots,
while you where busy on your research to find the clues to cancer. and not focussing on what is going around you.
and what A PRESIDENT MAY BELEIVE IN HIS HEART AND THE ACTIONS HE’S TAKING ARE NOT SUPPOSE TO BE
TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, HE IS SUPPOSE TO WORK FOR THE INTERESTS OF AMERICANS, NOT THE INTERESTS OF OTHER COUNTRIES AND THE UN ORGANISATION.
HE HAS BEEN ELECTED TO WORK IN AMERICA NOT WITH THE COMMUNIST AND MARXISTS FROM RUSSIA OLD AND NEW,
THOSE ARE ANTI AMERICAN VIEWS.
@Bees (#46): Just for the record, I have never accused antics (or anyone else on this blog) of “lying.”
I reserve the verb “to lie” for the situation where a person knows something to be false, but intentionally affirms that said falsehood is the truth, with to goal of permanent deceit. It is not a lie when someone is simply wrong, and believes something to be true which really isn’t true. I have never lied on this or any other blog and I’ve seldom suspected anyone else of lying, either, save for the rare situation where someone makes some seemingly outrageous claim about his/her personal life (e.g. “when I was in Yemen in the 1990s, I had the chance to personally capture Osama Bin Laden, but Bill Clinton ordered me not to do it.”).
There’s a difference between making a misstatement and lying. “Lying” is simply one of those words which gets distorted and misused on political blogs , in the same way that “fascist” and “communist” are distorted and misused.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
openid.aol.com/runnswim,
yes you did not use the word lying I took it as meant to lye, and I know that anticsrocks is not a fabricater of stories, he is direct and smart to know what he type to be the truth,
I am taking back the word lying, my apology,
best to you.
Thank you, Bees. And I agree with you that Antics is direct and smart. – Larry W
openid.aol.com/runnswim, you too, and desperatly needed in your research.