If You Think Obama Is A Communist You're An Idiot
76Only In Your Most Deluded Fantasy...
While the rest of the world has breathed a collective sigh of relief that America has finally elected someone who isn’t a right-wing nut-job and who might actually give a damn about the poorest and most vulnerable in the USA, it seems that a vocal minority have come out against Barack Obama’s good intentions.
A quick search of the internet (or indeed, our own beloved hubpages) throws up more accusations of communism than you can shake a hammer and sickle at. Ironically, far-right voicebox Fox News has compared Obama to Hitler (yes, that famous communist Adolf Hitler), demonstrating that when it comes to political history, the extreme right in America is pretty confused.
Why is this the case? Common sense and my own personal experience have demonstrated that most Americans, like most people, are pretty decent folks most of the time.
Maybe its Obama’s policies, like:
1. Universal Healthcare – Reordering America’s busted system which costs twice as much in GDP terms than the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) but fails to serve 15% of the population.
2. Ending torture and shutting down Guantanamo Bay – Endorsing state torture puts the USA up there with Iran, North Korea, Syria etc in the eyes of the world. Ending this policy is one way of convincing people that American democracy is more than just a cover for oil imperialism.
3. Seeking better relations with other countries – Again, peace is a good thing, uh, unless you are a war-mongering right-winger.
4. Making rich people pay their fair share – Higher taxes for the rich (in moderation) mean that more services can be provided for the poorest in society. This means a better educated population, less crime (due to greater opportunity) and better healthcare. Sure, that’s a simple argument, but if you oppose Obama the chances are you’ve learnt your economics from the Arthur Laffer school of supply-side nonsense. There’s a reason that no-one learns this stuff on an economics degree course.
These seem to me, and dare I say most of the world, as fairly desirable principles. Why should American taxpayers pay for wars that cause thousands of deaths while they can’t even get affordable healthcare coverage? Why should America, the land of the free, become instead the poster-boy for developed-world torture and war crimes?
America is this way because of the very people who have lined up to call Obama a communist. Are they racists? Possibly. Are they idiots? Absolutely!
They have supported George Bush for the last eight mediocre years while he has thrown away the balanced budget of Bill Clinton’s presidency and presided over the massive assets bubble which has caused the current economic crisis. Lets not even get started on the wars.
The fact is that if you think that Obama is a communist you are an idiot. Try reading a book. If you find books too tiring, try the internet. Read about what communism actually is and then try comparing what has happened in communist governments in the past with what is happening today in America. If you fail to spot any gulags or mass killings when you look outside your window or turn on your television this might be a good sign that the US has not turned communist yet.
Also, try learning some economics. And I mean real economics (again, books are useful for this). Big government bad, small government good is not economics, it is dogma. Government’s list of achievements include mass education, universal healthcare, mass vaccination and supporting the arts and culture.
While you’re at it maybe you can read about far away places like Europe, where we have universal healthcare and are still certifiably and thankfully non-communist.
There is nothing worse than political fanaticism (though genital warts are a close second). Political extremism thrives on simple slogans and easily digestible dogma. ‘Obama is a communist’ is one such example. It is a lie, pure and simple, that seeks to taint the reputation of a man who may just be able to lead the United States in a direction that will be beneficial to people in the USA and in the rest of the world. If you think Obama is a communist, wait till you see the rest of us.
|
Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance
Price: $6.00
List Price: $14.95 |
|
Barack Obama 6" Action Figure
Price: $7.48
List Price: $14.99 |
|
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream (Vintage)
Price: $3.96
List Price: $7.99 |
|
"What Would Obama Do?" Decision Maker
Price: $5.99
List Price: $9.99 |
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Good points, but don't expect the right to think so because it isn't on Fox!
Ralph and Randy, thanks very much for your comments, always good to hear some sanity above the madding crowd!
I guess each of us think the other is stupid. How do we bridge this impasse? We are indeed growing into two nations.
I don't think Obama is a Communist or a Hitler.
I think he leans toward Socialism, as you do. Don't be afraid of a label if you really believe what you say you do. I lean toward fiscal conservatism, but that's not a label I'm afraid of.
I don't want the government to manage or pay for any of your healthcare, or mine, or anyone else's. You disagree. I say reform the system, not completely dismantle and reconstruct. We're broke as hell. Don't talk about Bush's deficit unless you're willing to talk about Obama's deficit in 4 years. His will make Bush's seem miniscule by comparison.
I don't have the same definition of torture as you. If waterboarding some radical jihadist (these people want YOU dead by the way, and would rape and kill you if given a chance) keeps your loved ones, and mine, from getting 911'd, waterboard away. I'll get concerned when they start pulling their fingernails off with pliers. THAT'S torture.
Seeking better relations with other countries is great. Thinking that countries that hate everything we stand for and want us all dead are good candidates for diplomacy is naive, foolish, and dangerous. And completely idealistic, which is my favorite liberal trait. I, too, like to go to LaLa Land occasionally.
Let's just go ahead and eat the rich. Capitalistic
bastards.
I'm sorry about your genital warts. Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but your writing style was begging for it, like your last line. Your whole thesis was that Obama was not a Communist and that you wouldn't ever compare him to one, but then you said, "wait til you see the rest of us." So, what does that mean? That you are a communist? Or want to be one? Clear that up for me. I'm not accusing you, but that seems to be what you're implying.
As far as the race issue goes, I will admit that there are plenty of folks in this country who are racists. But playing the race card every time someone agrees with your candidate is becoming tedious and offensive. You sound like a kid who can't win an argument and has to result to namecalling. Absolutely juvenile.
I'm highly biased against people I disagree with, no matter what skin color they have. I will still hold the door for them at 7/11, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they think. We all have this bias problem, so quit calling me a racist and get off your high horse. Tell it to the Klan, or some other groups who are really racists. You can find them in all colors. There are A LOT more white ones, but that's due to simple math. There are more white people. Of course we have more racists. If there were 90% blacks in this country and 10% whites, there would be more black racists. Simple math. The Klan will wear your accusations proudly, so save that for them. I don't want to hear it any more. (I have many black and Latino friends, even though I have to wear the shame of being a white man.)
You libs sure get worked up about Fox! There's a neat new invention called a remote control. You can change the channels with it without getting up. Go to any other news channel on the television and you'll be fine. Surely you are not suggesting that some neo-con has a gun to your head when you watch the news.
Perhaps the left will succeed in censorship and get Fox off the air for good! Yay! That sure doesn't sound anything like communism.
Stan, thanks for your comment. I don't think you are stupid as by your own admission you don't think Obama is a communist/Hitler/Satan etc.
Why would you be afraid of being called a fiscal conservative? That's about as neutral a label as you can get. It's entirely possible to be a 'socialist', or God-forbid a 'communist' and still be a fiscal conservative. 'Communist', however is an entirely pejorative term in America. The reason I've not labelled Obama a socialist is because I don't think he is one.
Here in the UK, pretty much everyone from the crazy left to the crazy right supports the NHS. Why? Because its a good idea and everyone likes it despite its faults. Universal healthcare isn't a particularly socialist idea, its just common sense.
Waterboarding is torture. I don't have the time to construct a detailed argument but I bet you wouldn't like it if it happened to you or anyone you care about.
I think the point of better diplomatic policy is not for America to have a big love-in with Russia, Iran, etc - but so that the rest of the world won't hate America so much. This might make it easier rather than harder for America to marginalise and deal with its enemies.
Where did I say we should eat the rich?
I'm not a communist and neither is Obama. The point of the last line is that if you insist on seeing Obama as a communist then you are living in a world dominated by 'communists.'
I'm not calling you a racist because you don't believe Obama is a communist. By your own admission there are plenty of racists in America. Is it that hard to believe that some people (emphasis on some) on the right wing of the political spectrum, who sincerly believe that Obama is a communist, are racists?
Surprise, surprise I don't watch Fox news. The problem is having a 'news' source which is full of bias, distortion and outright lies. I don't think it should be censored (where did I say that?), but people do need to be made aware of the facts.
You seem nice and reasonable. We will still disagree but that's OK.
I don't believe in soaking the rich with more and more taxes. They already pay the majority of taxes. I'm poor, by the way. Not even middle-class, yet. (I used to be. I'm a 'victim' of the economy. Long story.)
I'm sure you agree that labels aren't nearly as important as actions. If I label myself a friendly fellow and then go and kill your grandmother, my label means nothing. I think when people call O a communist, they are usually referring to some of his far-left wealth distibution ideas and his push for 'big government'.
I wouldn't consider him a card-carrying communist in the classic sense. But I do hate the idea of government-mandated wealth distribution. I'm all for giving a leg up to those less fortunate. It's a shame that the church has largely failed at this - it's greatest calling, but that's another story.
And no, it's not hard to believe that some who call O a communist are racist. I just disagree with the idea that anytime someone says something derogatory about O, that they are saying it with a racial motivation. Surely you must agree that this is ludicrous. And it makes light of the true racial struggle that so many have suffered through in the past.
There are many who would love for Fox to be taken off the air. I assumed you were one of those. My apologies. CNN drove us all nuts in the Clinton years, but I didn't hear a single right-winger calling for censorship against them. The left seems to like free speech until people begin saying stuff they disagree with.
I will gladly submit to waterboarding tomorrow, and would be happy to do it on television. Maybe I'll YouTube it. That same evening, I could be laughing with my friends over beers about the whole experience, with no lasting physical damage whatsoever. If you pulled my fingernails off or extinguished cigarette butts on me, then I'm not going out for beers. Make sense? I'm against torture. So, we simply define torture differently, and on that I'm sure we'll continue to disagree. Spanking children is a similar topic. Some believe it's discipline. Some believe it's the same as beating them.
I don't think the world will love or hate America to any degree other than what they already do, no matter what we do. They won't love us or respect us more for having this KSM trial in NYC. I'm very much opposed to that.
On another note, I think both parties are shafting the American people. I'm sick of the whole damn thing. Read my We the Sheeple article for more on that....
Stan, thanks for another interesting comment.
Firstly, I think it’s worth pointing out that the reason I wrote this hub is not to slag off all Republicans or all right-wingers or whatever. The point is that anyone who believes Obama is a communist is seriously misguided and I would have to guess pretty stupid. At best, it shows an unbelievable level of historical and political ignorance.
I can understand if you really don’t agree with Obama’s policies calling him a communist in the context of a heated political argument. That’s called exaggeration and is fine. But to sit down and write about how he’s turning America into a communist nation or how America is going to become a dictatorship is beyond ridiculous. That’s not me finger-pointing at you by the way, Stan, that’s me having a go at the hundreds of people who clog up the internet with their Fox News-inspired nonsense.
I don’t agree with ‘soaking’ the rich either, but I think they can and should pay higher taxes and contribute more to society, especially the very rich. If nothing else, higher taxes on the rich would help America balance the books, surely a good thing for a fiscal conservative?
I don’t see your point on the idea of labels. Obama has done nothing to justify the ‘communist’ label. You can’t consider him a ‘card-carrying communist’ because he isn’t one! As for redistributing wealth this is what all countries do, America included. You tax people and spend it on the military, schools and even healthcare. So what’s the problem with Obama doing this? And it’s not like big government has just sprung up under Obama – I’m pretty sure he wasn’t carrying trillions of dollars of debt when he moved into the White House.
I fully agree with you that it is incredibly distasteful to bring race into every argument. To be fair, that wasn’t the point of my argument. In fact, I was actually saying that the main reason for people sincerely believing Obama is a communist is not racism but stupidity. That might only be slightly less insulting but as I’ve stated before I find this point of view extremely hard to defend. Certainly it is very possible to disagree with Obama without being a racist.
I can’t say that I would shed any tears were Fox to be taken off the air, but I wouldn’t support censorship or any outright ban. Having said that I certainly don’t support the well-documented misinformation, bias and outright lies that Fox delivers either.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the waterboarding issue but I look forward to your Youtube video. My argument is that waterboarding is simulated drowning which sounds pretty horrible in itself and is less tasteful when you consider that it’s been previously used by such lovely people as the Khmer Rouge and the Spanish Inquisition. Sure, you might still be able to play the ukulele afterwards but I sincerely doubt that the effects of PTSD are to be laughed at, just ask any soldier who’s seen serious action.
It’s more difficult for the rest of the world to take America seriously as a champion of human rights and a force for democracy when torture is condoned and wars declared unilaterally. This makes it harder not easier for America to pursue it’s own interests.
You seem to be a very intelligent, reasonable guy. Try this out with an open mind. Forget politics, use logic. What’s wrong with the Obama view on taxes? What’s wrong with his constant vow to tax the ‘rich’? To make the 'rich' pay their fair share? What’s inherently wrong with his proclaimed intent to ‘level’ the playing field? Here’s a simple, logical example that any open minded individual can understand explaining the fallacy behind ‘taxing the rich’.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out to eat. The bill for all ten is $100. If they paid their bill the way we currently pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth man would pay $1.
The sixth man would pay $3.
The seventh man would pay $7.
The eighth man would pay $12.
The ninth man would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
This seems like a good plan so it’s what they decide to do. The ten men eat at the same place every day and are quite happy with the arrangement until one day, the owner throws them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers I’m going to reduce the cost of your meal by $20.” The meal for the ten men is now only $80. The group still wants to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men are unaffected by the change. They will still eat for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide up the savings so that everyone would get their ‘fair share’?
They realize that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But, if they subtract that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat as they were only paying $1, and $3. So, the owner suggests that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount or a percentage of the savings which he proceeds to do and it works out like this:
The first four men (the poorest) again pay nothing.
The fifth man now pays nothing (100% savings).
The sixth man now pays $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh man now pays $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth man now pays $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth man now pays $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth man now pays $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
The first four still eat for free and the remaining six are better off than they were before. But, once they leave the restaurant the men begin to compare their savings. “Hey, I only got $1 out the $20 discount” declares the sixth man. He points to the tenth man and says “but he got $10!”. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaims the fifth man. “I only got $1 too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did.” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy always get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men, “We didn’t get anything. The system always exploits the poor!”
So, the nine men surround the tenth man and beat him up. The next day the tenth man doesn’t show up to eat, so the nine men sit down and have a big meal without him. However, when it came time to pay the $80 bill, guess what? The nine men discovered something very important. Without the tenth man (the richest) they don’t have enough money to pay even half the bill. And, that, boys and girls, is how the tax system works. In spite of the Obama mantra of ‘tax the rich, tax the rich’, the people who pay the highest taxes logically get the most benefit from any tax reduction. Those that pay nothing or very little receive little or no benefit. Common sense! Tax the ‘rich’ too much, attack them for being wealthy, accuse them too much and they may not show up to play the stupid game anymore. In fact, they may just starting eating in a restaurant overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. Makes sense to me!
Hi Tobey. Firstly, thanks for your intelligent (and lengthy!) comment. I really hope that you copy/pasted that from somewhere else!
Your parable makes an important point – if you cut taxes on everyone then the rich have the most to gain (numerically) from the cut even when they don’t get the biggest percentage cut.
Where I don’t agree with you is that this insight somehow means than taxes on the rich shouldn’t be raised, rather it simply means that we shouldn’t be surprised when rich people gain from universal tax cuts.
I don’t believe in overtaxing the rich, but there seems to be very little danger of that when you consider the income inequality prevalent in the US. Likewise, lack of access to universal healthcare and good education for the poorest seem to me a compelling economic as well as moral argument for government investment. A growing country needs educated and healthy people to continue growing. Increased investment in these social goods would support economic growth and lead to a more meritocratic society which appears to me, as a non-American, to be a core part of American values.
As above, there are two reasons to tax – economic and moral. Let’s add some other numbers to your example. The price of the meal is $100 but this time lets add income to the equation.
As a simple example, imagine if the first nine guys earns a dollar a day and the tenth guy earns $1000. Now, if the first nine guys spend their income on the meal the rich tenth guy will have to spend $91 to make up the rest.
However, if the rich guy is generous and agrees to pay for the whole meal then he loses 0.9% of his income ($9/$1000) but the other guys get to keep 100% of what they earn.
The moral argument for the rich guy to pay is obvious. The rich guy still has $900 to spend. He can go to another, fancier restaurant if he chooses. He has lost almost nothing whereas the poor guys have gained 10% in wealth terms (assuming they get an even share of the $100 meal they get $10 each plus $1 income or 10% extra).
The economic argument is more subtle. In an economy such as the one illustrated above (which I admit is a fairly ludicrous caricature) the poor guys will probably go out and spend all of their money. Being poor they will tend to spend it locally on basic goods and services. This money circulates in the economy and keeps it ticking over.
The rich guy by comparison has almost too much money. He doesn’t need to spend it because he is well fed, clothed and housed. If he does spend it, it will tend to be on exotic goods some of which will be from other countries. Or he could just save his money in the bank and leave it unspent. Either way, this is money that won’t be helping out the local economy.
The point of the economic argument is that if you want to stimulate consumption that will benefit the local economy you need to cut taxes on the poor not the rich because they spend more of their money and they spend it locally (in both cases because they have to).
In a democracy the poor guys don’t need to beat up the rich guy to take his money, they just vote for him to pay more. Sure, the guy can leave town but why bother for such a small amount? Moreover, why shouldn’t he help out the other guys in town?
If you think it’s a bad idea for the other guys to vote an extra tax for the rich guy even in this extreme situation then I guess that we don’t have much we can agree on. If you think its ok for the poor guys to take a little extra of the rich guy’s money then congratulations, you believe in economic redistribution.
I’ve been struggling for the last half hour to find some decile income distribution figures to hang on your example but all I can find are time series data. I’ll be honest, it’s been a long, hard day (even us communists need to work you know!) and I’m going to excuse myself this task.
I’m pretty sure that the principle holds though. Rich people can afford to pay more taxes and not be as affected as a poor person with the same tax rate. If you earn $1,000,000 per annum and pay 50% tax you still take home $500,000. You don’t have to worry about healthcare or giving your kids a good education and you have plenty left for the extras. A person earning $20,000 on the same tax rate would be left with $10,000 for all of their expenses. Say goodbye to healthcare and hello to a crap neighbourhood with poor schools for your kids. You’ll be lucky if you can put food on the table.
Of course rich and poor people don’t pay the same rate of tax but the above example is exactly why! If we agree with that fundamental principle then why is it wrong to speak of increasing taxes? If there are identifiable problems with society than redistribution can help make a better society for all – rich people benefit too from better educated workers which increase returns to investment and lower rates of crime.
Morally, I don’t understand how you (I mean you in the general sense, not having a go at you specifically Tobey) can justify some of the extreme wealth that is seen when millions of Americans don’t have access to proper healthcare and poor people have to make do with shitty education.
Economically, cutting taxes on the rich is stupid and will not stimulate the economy to the same extent that tax cuts on the poor will.
I will say again that I don’t agree that anyone should be eating the rich (they probably don’t taste very good for one thing) but I applaud the fact that Obama is making the poorest in society his priority at the (hopefully literal) expense of the most privileged.
I agree 100% with your title. Thanks for trying to educate Americans, although it may be a lost cause.... ;)
Thanks for your comment William, we can only try!
|
What You Should Know About Politics...But Don't: A Nonpartisan Guide to the Issues
Price: $41.98
List Price: $16.95 |
|
Politics for Dummies
Price: $2.26
List Price: $19.99 |
|
God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It
Price: $2.98
List Price: $14.95 |
|
Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
Price: $9.31
List Price: $22.00 |
Ralph Deeds says:
2 months ago
Great job. About time somebody took that one head on!