Obama's socialism

A whatsapp post: 


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently 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 will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

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. 

As the tests proceeded, 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. 

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED 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 not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

the US govt spends way more on corporate welfare than any other kind of welfare. if you (general you, not just the OP) are interested in truly trimming spending, that's the place to look.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the US govt spends way more on corporate welfare than any other kind of welfare. if you (general you, not just the OP) are interested in truly trimming spending, that's the place to look.

Double whammy then. And they are such hypocrites! All the more reason not to vote for the democrats in the next election.

Is that idiot professor suggesting that those who don't make much money in the US are lazy, not hard working? By that token he is lazy too compared to Gates & Buffets of the world. The classroom example is a modified version of collective farming, nothing new nor creative.

confuzzled dude wrote:Is that idiot professor suggesting that those who don't make much money in the US are lazy, not hard working? By that token he is lazy too compared to Gates & Buffets of the world. The classroom example is a modified version of collective farming, nothing new nor creative.

From each according to his ability. To each according to his capacity. Viva la revolucion, Comrade Camarada!

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Is that idiot professor suggesting that those who don't make much money in the US are lazy, not hard working? By that token he is lazy too compared to Gates & Buffets of the world. The classroom example is a modified version of collective farming, nothing new nor creative.

From each according to his ability. To each according to his capacity. Viva la revolucion, Comrade Camarada!

And, Obama is strongly against that?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Is that idiot professor suggesting that those who don't make much money in the US are lazy, not hard working? By that token he is lazy too compared to Gates & Buffets of the world. The classroom example is a modified version of collective farming, nothing new nor creative.

From each according to his ability. To each according to his capacity. Viva la revolucion, Comrade Camarada!

And, Obama is strongly against that?

You mean he is strongly *for* that, Comrade?

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Is that idiot professor suggesting that those who don't make much money in the US are lazy, not hard working? By that token he is lazy too compared to Gates & Buffets of the world. The classroom example is a modified version of collective farming, nothing new nor creative.

From each according to his ability. To each according to his capacity. Viva la revolucion, Comrade Camarada!

And, Obama is strongly against that?

You mean he is strongly *for* that, Comrade?

What a failure Obama has been, Let's do it the right way, the Louisiana way, the republican way.. & make the America the great again..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/out-of-office-jindal-looms-over-louisiana-budget-crisis/2016/03/07/e2a8c652-e47b-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/after-bobby-jindal-louisiana-reels-from-corporate-tax-giveaways/article_caee4e77-ffe0-5286-a1f9-7b90b6c70ed9.html

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Is that idiot professor suggesting that those who don't make much money in the US are lazy, not hard working? By that token he is lazy too compared to Gates & Buffets of the world. The classroom example is a modified version of collective farming, nothing new nor creative.

From each according to his ability. To each according to his capacity. Viva la revolucion, Comrade Camarada!

And, Obama is strongly against that?

You mean he is strongly *for* that, Comrade?

What a failure Obama has been, Let's do it the right way, the Louisiana way, the republican way.. & make the America the great again..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/out-of-office-jindal-looms-over-louisiana-budget-crisis/2016/03/07/e2a8c652-e47b-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/after-bobby-jindal-louisiana-reels-from-corporate-tax-giveaways/article_caee4e77-ffe0-5286-a1f9-7b90b6c70ed9.html

Trust WaPo to highlight this, Comrade. Here is the biggest example conveniently forgotten - California. The dems have successfully Californicated it.

btw, the US continues to be the place where the world is still investing despite nearly eight years of obama. i am always amused by this claim by the right that obama is a socialist and/or a communist. here are definitions of these words from the merriam webster dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Full Definition of socialism

   1:  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

   2a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property; b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

   3:  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

which of the above definitions according those who claim this, makes obama's america socialist?

   

Full Definition of communism

   1a :  a theory advocating elimination of private property b :  a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

   2  a :  a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics  b :  a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production  c :  a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d :  communist systems collectively

do you think this applies to contemporary united states?

or do you simply throw these terms around because some republican friend of yours told you so and it just sounds cool?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/warren-buffett-endorses-hillary-clinton-and-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy/

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/warren-buffett-endorses-hillary-clinton-and-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy/

higher taxes for the wealthy is different from welfare for the corporations.

corporations play one country against another for favors (welfare taxes), many US corporations (like Medtronic, Pfizer) will move overseas. many Wealthy americans may give up citizenship.

This is not as easy as Bernie, hillary and buffet suggesting.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/warren-buffett-endorses-hillary-clinton-and-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy/

higher taxes for the wealthy is different from welfare for the corporations.

corporations play one country against another for favors (welfare taxes), many US corporations (like Medtronic, Pfizer) will move overseas. many Wealthy americans may give up citizenship.

This is not as easy as Bernie, hillary and buffet suggesting.

i didn't imply that the two were the same, did i? my point in posting that article was to highlight that warren buffet who knows a thing or two about capitalism has been consistently for the democrats, the so called "socialists" and "communists". ironic isn't it? gives the lie to these silly claims.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/warren-buffett-endorses-hillary-clinton-and-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy/

higher taxes for the wealthy is different from welfare for the corporations.

corporations play one country against another for favors (welfare taxes), many US corporations (like Medtronic, Pfizer) will move overseas. many Wealthy americans may give up citizenship.

This is not as easy as Bernie, hillary and buffet suggesting.

i didn't imply that the two were the same, did i? my point in posting that article was to highlight that warren buffet who knows a thing or two about capitalism has been consistently for the democrats, the so called "socialists" and "communists".  ironic isn't it? gives the lie to these silly claims.

Much the "income" the rich like Buffett is investment income. Bill gates used to make a salary of just 550K less that many top execs at microsoft. The only way you can increase taxes on the wealthy is increasing the capital gains tax.

Guess what...then it will hit the middle class much much harder. Your 403 (b) will grow even slower.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/warren-buffett-endorses-hillary-clinton-and-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy/

higher taxes for the wealthy is different from welfare for the corporations.

corporations play one country against another for favors (welfare taxes), many US corporations (like Medtronic, Pfizer) will move overseas. many Wealthy americans may give up citizenship.

This is not as easy as Bernie, hillary and buffet suggesting.

i didn't imply that the two were the same, did i? my point in posting that article was to highlight that warren buffet who knows a thing or two about capitalism has been consistently for the democrats, the so called "socialists" and "communists".  ironic isn't it? gives the lie to these silly claims.

Much the "income" the rich like Buffett is investment income. Bill gates used to make a salary of just 550K less that many top execs at microsoft. The only way you can increase taxes on the wealthy is increasing the capital gains tax.

Guess what...then it will hit the middle class much much harder. Your 403 (b) will grow even slower.

it was not my intention at all in this thread to discuss cap gains, but simply to suggest that one of the most successful capitalists supports the democratic candidate. but since you started to discuss something irrelevant to this thread, i'll play along, pray explain how increasing capital gains tax rates will make my retirement plan grow slower?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/12/16/warren-buffett-endorses-hillary-clinton-and-calls-for-higher-taxes-on-wealthy/

higher taxes for the wealthy is different from welfare for the corporations.

corporations play one country against another for favors (welfare taxes), many US corporations (like Medtronic, Pfizer) will move overseas. many Wealthy americans may give up citizenship.

This is not as easy as Bernie, hillary and buffet suggesting.

i didn't imply that the two were the same, did i? my point in posting that article was to highlight that warren buffet who knows a thing or two about capitalism has been consistently for the democrats, the so called "socialists" and "communists".  ironic isn't it? gives the lie to these silly claims.

Much the "income" the rich like Buffett is investment income. Bill gates used to make a salary of just 550K less that many top execs at microsoft. The only way you can increase taxes on the wealthy is increasing the capital gains tax.

Guess what...then it will hit the middle class much much harder. Your 403 (b) will grow even slower.

it was not my intention at all in this thread to discuss cap gains, but simply to suggest that one of the most successful capitalists supports the democratic candidate. but since you started to discuss something irrelevant to this thread, i'll play along, pray explain how increasing capital gains tax rates will make my retirement plan grow slower?

Just bcz THE rich guy supports your democratic candidate does not mean AUTOMATICALLY raising taxes will be good for the rest of us (the not-so-rich among us). Mitt Romney, Bill Gates or Warren Buffet will not be affected much no matter what the rates are...but middle class will be squeezed harder.

If the capital gains tax rate is increased the company runs your retirement funds will pay higher taxes on the capital gains they make and will reduce the amount available to distribute for their share owners. The salaries and commission "sucked out" by the fund managers will increase as well to account for the greater tax they in turn will pay.

That is just for the beginning.

100% of my retirement portfolio is in some index fund or the other. The only selling that happens is when companies move out of the index and when withdrawals occur. Way less than any actively managed fund.

He's not just any rich guy. He's the smartest ever rich guy and probably the most scrupulous one that ever lived.

http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2012/02/17/john-bogle-on-taxes-praise-for-obama-raise-capital

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2012/02/17/john-bogle-on-taxes-praise-for-obama-raise-capital

ok..fine... i am supporting Trump.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2012/02/17/john-bogle-on-taxes-praise-for-obama-raise-capital

ok..fine... i am supporting Trump.

That's today. We'll see who tomorrow's candidate is.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2012/02/17/john-bogle-on-taxes-praise-for-obama-raise-capital

ok..fine... i am supporting Trump.

That's today. We'll see who tomorrow's candidate is.

Tomorrow is another day.

Obama may have won 2012 with a majority. But almost 50% of the voters voted against him. In a way many of those voters are looking for the anti Obama. Ergo Trump.

Oh and people talking about the first black President conveniently forget that Obama is half white and his father wasn't really African-American.

Hellsangel wrote:Obama may have won 2012 with a majority. But almost 50% of the voters voted against him. In a way many of those voters are looking for the anti Obama. Ergo Trump.

Oh and people talking about the first black President conveniently forget that Obama is half white and his father wasn't really African-American.

The way he was perceived by the world at large was as an African American. He is also married to a woman who is authentically AA as is her family. I don't see what the problem is here. History is going to elevate this man's legacy. He has been a great president, Mt Rushmorean president if I may say so. Haters gonna hate. But they've always been haters.

It's such a difficult and stark contrast -- the majesty of president Obama vs the tawdry and arrogant loudness of Drumpf.

And cult boys are always gonna fawn and adore.

Obama is a socialist? How?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Obama may have won 2012 with a majority. But almost 50% of the voters voted against him. In a way many of those voters are looking for the anti Obama. Ergo Trump.

Oh and people talking about the first black President conveniently forget that Obama is half white and his father wasn't really African-American.

The way he was perceived by the world at large was as an African American. He is also married to a woman who is authentically AA as is her family. I don't see what the problem is here. History is going to elevate this man's legacy. He has been a great president, Mt Rushmorean president if I may say so. Haters gonna hate. But they've always been haters.

In my view. Obama presidency is very successful:

1. He turned around the distressed economic situation in 2008.

2. He initiated and implemented SOMEKIND OF healthcare plan - after even the Clintons failed (I see a lot of holes in the plan but the republicans would not have done a shyt on this one.)

3. He broke the glass ceiling on race and access to Whitehouse for a non-white. Of course, unless a couple of more gatecrash the presidency it will be just a blip in history.

4. The presidency is free of corruption - just look at the one-a - year scandal in the Reagan and Clinton era.

5. The guy is humble - not like the Idiot Bush claiming victory on a frigate in Hawaii (he could not spell Hawaii).

6. He did something to break the lockjam on Iran and Cuba.

And all this despite the black-hating, republicans stalling him on every count and bad mouthing every one of his actions.

As with all presidencies, with time, the negatives will fade away, and there will be plenty of good things to remember from his era which will make him one of the best presidents.

It is already a great presidency and time will only make it shine brighter. What he has done with a non-functioning congress is nothing short of miraculous. McConell couldn't keep any of his pledges, not even the pledge he made to limit president Obama to one term. LoL!

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the US govt spends way more on corporate welfare than any other kind of welfare. if you (general you, not just the OP) are interested in truly trimming spending, that's the place to look.

I think it would be much better if such statements are backed up by facts.

rawemotions wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the US govt spends way more on corporate welfare than any other kind of welfare. if you (general you, not just the OP) are interested in truly trimming spending, that's the place to look.

I think it would be much better if such statements are backed up by facts.

Sure.
http://www.alternet.org/robert-reich-corporate-welfare-destroying-our-economy-video

Actually there's bipartisan agreement on this though there may be disagreement on the details:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/corporate-welfare-wastes-taxpayer-and-economic-resources

Oh and to the one whose emotions aren't ripe yet:  surprising you asked me for proof but never said anything about anecdotal nonsense in the OP that president Obama is a socialist.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:100% of my retirement portfolio is in some index fund or the other. The only selling that happens is when companies move out of the index and when withdrawals occur. Way less than any actively managed fund.

He's not just any rich guy. He's the smartest ever rich guy and probably the most scrupulous one that ever lived.

hahaha

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:100% of my retirement portfolio is in some index fund or the other. The only selling that happens is when companies move out of the index and when withdrawals occur. Way less than any actively managed fund.

He's not just any rich guy. He's the smartest ever rich guy and probably the most scrupulous one that ever lived.

hahaha

I take it you don't agree. That's ok. Your reasons?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:the US govt spends way more on corporate welfare than any other kind of welfare. if you (general you, not just the OP) are interested in truly trimming spending, that's the place to look.

I think it would be much better if such statements are backed up by facts.

Sure.
http://www.alternet.org/robert-reich-corporate-welfare-destroying-our-economy-video

This Video is light on Facts. 

This link gives the breakup on government spending on welfare

This link gives the same data with more details on Mandatory spending, with slightly different figures, since the base year is different.

In 2011, Social Sector Spending is at least 2.00 Trillion $ (Medicare + Unemployment + Social Security + Food stamps).
Medicare + Social Security alone is $1.58 Trillion.
Unemployment + Food Stamps ALONE is $196 Billion.

Assuming corporate welfare is $100 Billion (as listed in the alternet website) the spending on Welfare, dwarfs Corporate welfare.

Social security should not be classified as a social welfare program at all. It's pre-paid as a tax.

"Social security should not be classified as a social welfare program at all. It's pre-paid as a tax."  Max 


>>> good point.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:Social security should not be classified as a social welfare program at all. It's pre-paid as a tax.

Please check the facts reported. I said social sector pending. I did not say all of them is welfare.

And Please see what I highlighted specifically. There is a reason why I separately listed it.

Unemployment + Food Stamps ALONE is $196 Billion.

That number is at least 100 Billion MORE than the 100 Billion number quoted for Corporate Welfare.

The conclusion reported by the article is short on facts!

rawemotions wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:Social security should not be classified as a social welfare program at all. It's pre-paid as a tax.

Please check the facts reported. I said social sector pending. I did not say all of them is welfare.

And Please see what I highlighted specifically. There is a reason why I separately listed it.

Unemployment + Food Stamps ALONE is $196 Billion.

That number is at least 100 Billion MORE than the 100 Billion number quoted for Corporate Welfare.

The conclusion reported by the article is short on facts!

Raw,

Your numbers prove the fallacy of your argument.

Unemployment payments are covered by taxes paid by employers for that purpose.

The billions spent on welfare and food stamps, it is distributed to a large population which is at the lowest economic strata of USA.
It includes people with disabilities, single women families, children, old people, homeless people and really poor people. An affluent society like USA has a responsibility to take care of its weak and disabled.

The billions spent on corporate welfare goes to profit rich oil companies, supports world largest companies. That money is nothing but repayment for electoral donations.

No comparison. No support for your argument.