Posts Tagged ‘socialism’

h1

The Little Red Hen

April 20, 2012

The Little Red Hen

– by Doug Smith –

attributed: Summit Sun 8 July 1971

Little Red Hen

Once upon a time, there was a little red hen who scratched about and uncovered some grains of wheat.  She called her barnyard neighbors and said, “If we work together and plant this wheat, we will have some fine bread to eat.  Who will help me plant the wheat?”  “Not I,” said the cow.  “Not I,” said the duck.  “Not I,” said the goose.  “Then I will,” said the little red hen, and she did.

 

The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain.  “Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.  “Not I,” said the duck.  “Out of my classification,” said the pig.  “I’d lose my seniority” said the cow.  “I’d lose my unemployment insurance,” said the goose.

Then it came time to bake the bread.  “That’s overtime for me,” said the cow.  I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the duck.  “I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the pig.  “If I’m the only one helping, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

“Then I will,” said the little red hen.  And she did.

She baked five loaves of fine bread and held them all up for the neighbors to see.  They all wanted some, demanded a share.  But the red hen said, “No, I can rest for a while and eat the five loaves myself.”

“Excess profits,” cried the cow.  “Capitalistic leech,” screamed the duck.  “Company fink,” grunted the pig.  “Equal rights,” yelled the goose.  And they hurriedly painted picket signs and marched around the little red hen singing, “We shall overcome,” and they did.

For when the farmer came, he said, “You must not be greedy, little red hen.  Look at the oppressed cow.  Look at the disadvantaged duck.  Look at the under-privileged pig.  Look at the less fortunate goose.  You are guilty of making second-class citizens of them.”

“But….but,” said the little red hen.  “I earned the bread.”

“Exactly,” said the wise farmer.  “That is the wonderful free enterprise system; anybody in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants.  You should be happy to have this freedom.  In other barnyards, you’d have to give all five loaves to the farmer.  Here you give four loaves to your suffering neighbors.” And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked: “I am grateful.  I am grateful.”

But her neighbors wondered why she never baked any more bread.

h1

Healthcare: Stealth Socialism

October 26, 2009

Stealth Socialism

26 Oct. 2009 | IBD

Sen. Snowe: Finger on the trigger of a single-pay system? AP

Sen. Snowe: Finger on the trigger of a single-pay system? APView Enlarged Image

Health Reform: Congress’ planned health care revolution will be bad enough without a government-run option. With it, Euro-style socialism becomes inevitable. It’s time for a bipartisan way out of this disaster.

Last week proved Democrats want as much big government control as possible in the huge medical sector of the economy. The president’s advisers said he’s still committed to a government-run public option, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lined up three versions of such a plan and the Senate majority leader announced a public plan with a state opt-out.

Why is the public option back at all? It seemed dead after a study earlier this year indicated such a plan would mean private health insurers could lose nearly 120 million customers.

Described as being “prized by liberals as a fundamental pillar of reform,” the public option is really a way to put capitalistic America on a path toward socialized medicine.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a longtime co-sponsor of single-payer legislation, said in July, “I think the best way we’re gonna get single-payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate its strength and its power.” Why not just enact single-payer? “We don’t have the votes for it,” Frank replied.

The public option was conceived by leftist organizations such as the Campaign for America’s Future years ago because polls showed the American people liked private health insurance and would never go for a direct government takeover. Ex-Sen. John Edwards’ presidential campaign embraced it as “stealth single-payer,” and the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama followed suit.

Renegade Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine may be the one to thank if this new medical entitlement becomes reality, at a time when government accountants warn that Washington is spending the country toward a fiscal doomsday.

The president is reportedly smitten with Snowe’s public option “trigger” — an idea that comes down to this: If private insurers charge customers more than Uncle Sam dictates as they deal with all the new costs Washington imposes, the federal government will become their unfair competitor and wreck the private health insurance industry.

With or without a government-run option, the Democrats’ radical transformation of the greatest health care system in the world still means reams of new regulations on private insurers, including the likely end of anti-trust protection.

It means fines for those — especially the young — who won’t buy what will become high-priced insurance. It may slap uncooperative employers with an 8% payroll tax. And it may impose a $460 billion, 5.4% income tax surcharge sure to kill private sector jobs.

It’s time for new ideas, like the expanded private coverage options of the Patients’ Choice Act, backed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Richard Burr, R-N.C.

As Ryan warns, the federal government would run health care “with the compassion of the IRS, the efficiency of the Post Office and the incompetence of Katrina.”

h1

Cartoon: Uncle Sam’s SCAR | Socialism

October 19, 2009

h1

Obama: We’re This Close

October 13, 2009

We are this close to our goal of SOCIALISM

[picapp src=”b/0/4/8/Obama_Makes_Remarks_cd58.JPG?adImageId=5408087&imageId=6771059″ width=”500″ height=”354″ /]

h1

Economics Professor

July 10, 2009

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor  and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said,  “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test  rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when  government takes all the reward away, no one  will try or want to succeed.

Could  it be any  simpler than that?

h1

Obama’s Red Chorus

June 9, 2009

IBD 4 June 09

Socialism: Is Hugo Chavez emerging as a sort of tropical Greek chorus for the Democrats’ ongoing redistribution schemes? It says something that he cheers every time a new act of socialism is performed in the U.S.

Rest assured, Venezuela’s self-described Communist commandante does not wish us well. But Obama’s administration has managed to awe him with its takeover of General Motors.

 “Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama!” Chavez cheered on Venezuelan TV Tuesday. He gushingly added that he and Cuba’s Fidel Castro would now have to work harder just to keep up.

 It underlines two things: just how closely the Venezuelan strongman watches what’s happening in the U.S and just how badly it resembles his own war on private property.

Unlike Cuba’s Fidel Castro, who shot his way into a Marxist dictatorship, Chavez has achieved his “socialist revolution” by manipulating institutions, particularly legal ones.

He’s been at it for 10 years, picking off companies one by one, using legal technicalities unrelated to his true aim of state ownership for all means of production. It ought to worry people that what’s happening at GM is perfectly recognizable in Caracas.

In 2004, Chavez began by expropriating cattle ranches in Venezuela, saying he only wanted to clarify property rights, not confiscate land. End result: Virtually all productive land now is in his hands, redistributed to his loyalists in serfdom.

After that, he went after the U.S. oil industry, snagging prizes like Exxon Mobil’s $1 billion heavy-oil complex on the Orinoco River in 2007, citing a different legal issue: tax disputes.

He did similar expropriations with steel, cement, ports, banks, sugar, rice, pretty much any industry that was viable.

Running out of companies to steal, he now persecutes private media — not, he claims, to stifle dissent, but to protect children from smut, his pretense for shutting down RCTV in 2007.

For the last remaining nonstate TV station, his concern is now environmental desecration, with Chavistas using the pretense of some old antlers on the wall of a Globovision executive following an open-ended state raid as the excuse to shut down the TV station.

Whatever Chavez’s legal concerns are, the punishment is always the same: expropriation and more power to the state, the two pillars of socialism.

The GM case is in this league and should give Democrats pause, because they also are using legal pretenses to justify a takeover.

Obama administration officials invented a right for themselves to muscle in on existing company owners, using bailout cash as an instrument of expropriation over the rights of bondholders.

They also used bailout cash as a green light to distribute gravy to their United Auto Workers union cronies, handing them a disproportionate stake in the company, illegally favoring unsecured debts over secured debts.

In so doing, they expropriated property without compensation, broke 150 years of contract law, and made Chavez proud.

Make no mistake: The Venezuelan dictator does not wish us well. He’d like to see all of our institutions crash to the ground and put the U.S. into the same socialist morass he’s in.

He knows that one act after another on this GM model in the U.S. will end in state socialism, with all the poverty, misery, shortages, noninvestment and lack of freedom that now plague Venezuela.

The Obama administration officials involved in the GM takeover may not think their action will harm the system, but they’re wrong.

Chavez is watching closely and will follow their example, hitting more American companies on similar pretenses abroad.

Unlike them, he thinks private property is itself the enemy and now has a new tool. Exxon officials have pointed out convincingly that the continuous vilification of oil companies by Congress helped to embolden Chavez to steal Exxon’s assets abroad.

One hopes the Obama administration thinks hard about what Chavez is telling them: “They’re criticizing him because they say he’s moving toward socialism — come Obama, ally with us on the path to socialism, it’s the only road,” Chavez declared on Venezuelan state TV in March. “Imagine a socialist revolution in the U.S.! Nothing is impossible.”

h1

Newsweek: Socialist Now

April 9, 2009

Does anyone remember when the motto for Newsweek was “We separate fact from fiction”?

They stopped using that slogan when many of us were quoting it and adding “Yes – Newsweek separates fact from fiction – and then prints fiction.”

Don

newsweek

NOTE THE COMMENT BELOW: (written by Linda.C)

A great commentary on our free enterprise system!  Don:

Socialism fails and milton friedman was right. His DVD series is wonderful and shows exactly why 2.0 unemployment, under socialism, is still miserable.

The economy is the exchange of goods and services. And the economy accelerates when people really want to exchange goods and services. When you have rewards to creating something that others want, as in capitalism, you get motive to innovate new products through creativity and technology. If you have a bunch of people doing this, you exchange these goods and services and create jobs and wealth.

Under socialism, people stay complacent in their situation. there is relatively any motivation to create products that other people want, and this creates a domino effect. (you can motivate others to produce cool products if they want other peoples’ cool products). however, high taxes eliminates the motivation for many. And for this reason, most of the good products come out of capitalists countries.

There is not a set amount of wealth in this world. It can be created and people can join in by creating something that people want. Obama’s policies seek to make everyone equal by stifling competition and innovation — trickle up poverty.

So everyone is equal financially, and unemployment is very low — but everyone is just above poverty. Cuba has low unemployment, but there are no mansions and nothing to shoot for.

Furthermore, people stop progressing. People stop learning from failures.

h1

Obama Wants to Control the Banks

April 6, 2009

Obama Wants to Control the Banks

There’s a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn’t much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street’s black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ’em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration’s thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.

If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash — which was often forced on them in the first place — the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That’s what’s happening right now.

Here’s a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.

Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now.

Which brings me to the Pay for Performance Act, just passed by the House. This is an outstanding example of class warfare. I’m an Englishman. We invented class warfare, and I know it when I see it. This legislation allows the administration to dictate pay for anyone working in any company that takes a dime of TARP money. This is a whip with which to thrash the unpopular bankers, a tool to advance the Obama administration’s goal of controlling the financial system.

After 35 years in America, I never thought I would see this. I still can’t quite believe we will sit by as this crisis is used to hand control of our economy over to government. But here we are, on the brink. Clearly, I have been naive.

Mr. Varney is a host on the Fox Business Channel.

h1

Cartoon: Queen, Obama, Socialism

April 3, 2009

h1

Cartoon: Obama vs. Wagner

March 31, 2009

h1

On The Road To Socialism? We’ve Arrived!

March 4, 2009

On The Road To Socialism? We’ve Arrived!

By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN | IBD 4 March 2009

In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.

Yet his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the right.

The real Obama has stood up and lived up to his ranking as the most left-wing member of the Senate.

Barack has no mandate for this. He was even behind John McCain when the decisive event that gave him the presidency occurred — the September collapse of Lehman Bros. and the market crash.

Republicans are under no obligation to render bipartisan support to this statist coup d’etat. For what is going down is a leftist power grab that is anathema to their principles and philosophy.

Where the U.S. government usually consumes 21% of gross domestic product, this Obama budget spends 28% in 2009 and runs a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.7% of GDP. That is four times the largest deficit of George W. Bush and twice as large a share of the economy as any deficit run since World War II.

Add that 28% of GDP spent by the U.S. government to the 12% spent by states, counties and cities, and government will consume 40% of the economy in 2009.

We are not “headed down the road to socialism.” We are there.

Since the budget was released, word has come that the U.S. economy did not shrink by 3.8% in the fourth quarter, but 6.2%. All the assumptions in Obama’s budget about growth in 2009 and 2010 need to be revised downward, and the deficits revised upward. Look for the deficit for 2009 to cross $2 trillion.

Who abroad is going to lend us the trillions to finance our deficits without demanding higher interest rates on the U.S. bonds they are being asked to hold? And if we must revert to the printing press to create the money, what happens to the dollar?

As Americans save only a pittance and have lost — in the value of homes, stocks, bonds and other assets — $15 trillion to $20 trillion since 2007, how can the people provide the feds with the needed money?

In his speech to Congress, Obama promised new investments in energy, education and health care. Every kid is going to get a college degree. We’re going to find a cure for cancer.

Who is going to pay for all this? The top 2%, the filthy rich who got all those Bush tax breaks, say Democrats. But the top 5% of income earners already pay 60% of income taxes, while the bottom 40% pay nothing.

Those paying a federal tax rate of 35% will see it rise to near 40% and will lose a fifth of the value of their deductions for taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Two-thirds of small businesses are taxed at the same rate as individuals. Consider what this means to the owner of a restaurant and bar in Los Angeles open from noon to midnight, where a husband and wife each put in 80 hours a week.

At year’s end, the couple find they have actually made a profit of $500,000 that they can take home in salary. What is the Obama-Schwarzenegger tax take on that salary? Their U.S. tax rate will have hit 39.6%. Their California income tax will have hit 9.55%.

Medicare payroll taxes on the proprietor as both employer and salaried employee will be $14,500. Social Security payroll taxes for the proprietor as both employer and employee will be $13,243.

In short, U.S. and state income and payroll taxes will consume half of all the pair earned for some 8,000 hours of work.

From that ravaged salary they must pay a state sales tax of 8.25%, gas taxes for the 50-mile commute, and tens of thousands in property taxes on both their restaurant and home.

And, after being pilloried by politicians for having feasted in the Bush era, they are now told the tax deduction they get for contributing to the church is to be cut 20%, while millions of Obama voters, who paid no U.S. income tax at all, will be getting a tax cut — i.e., a fat little check — in April.

Any wonder native-born Californians are fleeing the Golden Land?

Markets are not infallible. But the stock market has long been a “lead indicator” of where the economy will be six months from now. What are the markets, the collective decisions of millions of investors, saying?

Having fallen every month since Obama’s election, with January and February the worst two months in history, they are telling us the stimulus package will not work, that Tim Geithner is clueless about how to save the banks, that the Obama budget portends disaster for the republic.

The president says he is gearing up for a fight on his budget.

Good. Let’s give him one.