Spread The Wealth

President Obama and Joe the Plumber

Socialism in the Oval Office

Remember the famous exchange between then Senator Obama and Joe the Plumber (Joe Wurzelbacher)? Senator Obama told Joe the Plumber he was going to "raise his taxes" so as to "spread the wealth." This is when Obama first made mention of taxing those making over $250K and those under would not be taxed. Joe was skeptical. Basically, Joe said that since he was about to buy a plumbing company, he would be among those small businessmen who would be taxed under Obama's plan to fund his agenda. Joe the Plumber made mention of a flat tax. President Obama said, “you know, I would be open to it except here’s the problem with a flat tax is that if you actually put a flat tax together, in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we’ve got, you’d probably end up having to make it like about a 40% sales tax." Basically, Obama was saying there was not a chance in hell he would ever support a flat tax because, in his estimation, you would have to have a 40% sales tax to replace lost revenue. Of course, that is total BS. The President needs to leave economics to his advisers. In his way of thinking, there would be little change with a flat tax. Regardless, this hub isn't about Obama's nouveau tax code ideas.

That first mention of "spread the wealth " was the first clue President Obama had, to put it politely, " socialist sympathies. " People questioned that remark immediately as I recall. The McCain Campaign should have gone after him on that. But, they remained on the sidelines. Then Obama became President. We had all the bailouts of banks, auto manufacturers, and, of course, a take over of the healthcare industry. Basically, the government took control of all three of those industries. The cries of socialism began anew and this time with an increased fervor. I can never recall a President being accused of being a socialist more than President Obama. But, this time, unlike with Joe the Plumber, people had reason to be concerned. The proof was in the pudding. President Obama and his gangsta captains, Pelosi and Reid, took full aim at taking control of American industries despite overwhelming numbers in the polls showing Americans against their agenda. Even at this, I didn't really want to call President Obama a socialist. I guess I really didn't want to believe it.

But, after what President Obama said yesterday, it proves even more I can't keep thinking that way. President Obama said to a crowd in Quincy, Illinois, about financial reform, "At some point, you've made enough money." Just taking that statement at face value is mind boggling. Here is the President of the United States of America, telling Americans there is a limit to whatever success they can hope to achieve in their lives. He said this to a group of Americans who have been told all their lives that America is the "land of opportunity." You are only limited by your own desires and interests to succeed. That is what we have been led to believe. But, here is President Obama telling this Quincy crowd that people on Wall St. are going to make "X" amount of dollars. Now, you can say, "But, this is the Wall St people he is talking about, the same people who had to be bailed out with our tax dollars." He didn't put into any words just exactly who he was talking about. But, even if he was just talking about Wall St., there are investors all over this country who are independently wealthy due to their own desires and initiatives. There are people who work hard on Wall St. to make themselves a good living. Throwing them all in with the few who break the rules is being totally unfair. I'm not rich by no means. But, I don't feel I should punish those wealthy who played by the rules and are now enjoying the rewards. But, a socialist doesn't see it that way. All wealthy people got that way because of some nefarious means. They are keeping poor people poor. So, in order to make things fair, we need to "spread the wealth."

I don't see how anyone can say that President Obama is nothing but a socialist now. He got off teleprompter (which is always dangerous for President Obama) and once again has outed himself. He says he is not wanting to begrudge people success by pushing finance reform. But, like the typical politician he is, he also says "At some point, you've made enough money." There is no way he can explain this one away. "At some point," President Obama has to come right out and admit what we all know now; the President of the United States is a hardcore socialist.

Comments 33 comments

JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

HUBBERS

CHECK THIS OUT

The white house some time ago said that Beck was making erroneous statements about president Barack Obama and the administration. Many times he will comment that the red phone (telephone # )know only to the president has not rang as yet.

Glen Beck show is reporting explosive information that the main street press and media refuses to report to the public.

Silence by ABC, NBC CBS, CNN, MSNBC and others is typical of how they refuse to report any of the negatives of the Obama administration and the inner workings of Washington,

For example I wrote regarding finance reform and cap and trade

I caught Glen Beck on Fox News, he was exposing the questionable

relationships of Goldman Sachs( campaign funding to Barak

Obama and some Dem's $33 MILLION ),the unions ( SEIU

and the AFLCIO ),Frank Raines (took $90 million out of Fannie

Mae ),Joel Rodgers (the apollo alliance group, they wrote the

Healthcare Reform bill for congress ),Al Gore ( investments in

the Chicago Climate Exchange),Joyce foundation (connections

with Barak Obama and Valerie Jarrett) and president Barack Obama.

GLEN BECK USED OLD ACTUAL NEWS CLIPS TO

SUPPORT THE ACCUSATIONS

There are many reasons as to why certain groups or people would like to silence Glen Beck. Speak out and seek the truth from the government before we end up like Europe.

HEY HUBBERS

We should be worrying about the next move from president Obama and the Democrat Congress.

The 2011 federal budget was supposed to be presented by April 15th. the ''just say no crowd '' Republicans have been locked out of the budget process '' Obama's open government and his way of bipartisanship ''

Today is May 18 and no budget to see, guess it's all behind locked doors while the president is in ohio telling the people that the Republicans caused the recession and its the Republicans fault that unemployment hasn't bounced back.

Obama on the campaign trail, Congress looking for a 2011 budget, another untruth about the recession and just plain BS by the highest officer in the land.

If you missed Beck today check him out the expose is getting better. the videos of the past are enlightening.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

SOBF, I guess my questions don't merit your consideration. But, I'll continue on.

I guess you have given up on the New Deal as being the reason we came out of the depression. I don't know what your thinking is since you refuse to answer my "simplistic" questions. But, that's ok.

You are really reaching here. Did the shipyards, tool and die, steel plants, etc., suddenly on their own decide to declare war on Japan and Germany? Again, it was a federal government intervention to pay these **privately owned** companies to produce the weaponry needed for a wartime economy. The federal government did not directly hire these people. The privately owned companies did. There was a demand for a wartime product. The private companies provided the supply for this demand. Tell me, after Japan's surrender, what happened to the economy? There was still a demand with **consumers** who wanted cars and homes. It was the private sector that created the boom, not the federal government.

The key words here are "Germany, Japan declared war" on the USA. It was not an act that the US federal government initiated. If not for the onset of WWII, what makes you think the USA would not have continued suffering in an economic depression (assuming, of course, this isn't too simplistic)?


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

Writer David and Joer4X4

Who was purchasing during the war creating employment? It was the government, using tax dollars. Factories tooled up and hired to support the war effort. Sounds like a stimulus plan to me.

joer4X4

You pose an excellent question so I will attempt to provide you with an excellent answer. Would I be better off with $100 dollars or $75 which gives me more liberty to choose?

If I lived in a society void of variables having $100 would obviously be much better, however since no such society exist my benefit would be determined by risk inherent to the society I currently find myself. For example, if I had $100 sitting in an investment during the systemic banking failures and those banks were allowed to fail without government backed FDIC insurance I would probably be broke now. At the same time if I gave the government $25 out of that hundred and they were able to sure up the banking system and support the operation of the FDIC my $75.00 would be safe. Unless my memory fails me I don’t remember bankers promising to make depositors whole if they went under.


Gyspy Writer profile image

Gyspy Writer 6 years ago from Midwest

I notice the fat cats who scream the loudest about social injustice and sharing the wealth are always the ones wanting to spend other people's money, not their own. There is nothing stopping Obama or any of his leftist supporters from writing us all checks and emptying their own bank accounts. Hypocrites.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

Tony, that treaty with the UN surprised me. I'm even more surprised that Limbaugh or Beck has not mentioned it yet. Basically, Obama is usurping the U.S. Constitution by getting in league with the devil (UN). But, the Obama Zombies will not say anything until Obama's power grab affects them. Even then, they will blame the Tea Party, I believe. You are right, we are in it deep. I don't understand why people continue to ignore what Obama is doing.


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 6 years ago from san diego calif

David all I know is as this administration moves forward , what I used to find annoying I now put in the atrocities category. This administration will not protect our borders, and have now signed a treaty with the UN that will do an end around on the second amendment. This happened while all of us have had our eyes on the oil spill in the gulf. And not to mention all these supposed tax cuts have been replaced with cap and trade legislation , value added tax and other substitutes for income tax. But try to explain that to a myopic liberal and you are called racist, right wing extremists , teabagger etc. That is due to their lack of ability to put forth a cogent conversation based on fact.

This country is in deep you know what. And the citizens on the left continue to blindly follow these Harvard Idiots to their demise. And I hope somehow we can reverse this process , because saying I told you so will be at a point when its far too late !


nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

"The wealthy in society are by enlarge those with the biggest potential to grow they're fortune. The reality is that the American dream is a carrot on a stick."

Evidently they were able to reach the carrot.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

SOBF, I guess you don't answer my questions, but I am required to answer yours, right? Why am I not surprised?

Awww yes...the "New Deal.' Yes, I was taught in school it was the ND that pulled us out of the Great Depression. That was as successful as the stimulus/jobs bills of today's socialist agenda. As Joe already indicated, it had far more to do with WWII and the fight to defeat Hitler than the "New Deal." This ND was incorporated during the first term of FDR. From 1933 to 1937, it had virtually no effect on jobs...except federally created jobs. It harmed jobs creation in the private sector, which is why so many people didn't like it or FDR.

That federal income tax was illegal after the civil war. It continues to be illegal today. There is absolutely nothing in that hated U.S. Constitution that relates to imposing a tax on the American people from the federal government. At one time, believe it or not, the federal government was supposed to do only two things; a form of mass communication (USPS) and defense (armed forces). That was their role. Now, it is a monster that is fed by its servants, the American Taxpayer.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

SOBF:

I never heard any conservative make that claim. As far as I know the claim was that the war solved the unemployment problem. And that is true. Women worked in the factories and men went to war.

Our founding fathers were all dead by time the civil was came around. The tax you reference was repealed and ranged from 3 - 5%. It was the first income tax and was unconstitutional. Today taxes range from 30% - 50% depending where you live in the US.

You need to ask yourself a question. Am I better of with $100 or $75? Which gives me more liberty to choose?


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

Writer David - Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we pull out of the depression based on public spending. While most conservatives like to claim that it was not government spending but the war that helped turn around this countries economic condition, they conveniently forget that war spending is government spending. Next question, There was also a tremendous tax increase directly following the civil war, a increase (by our founding fathers) that was used to fund reconstruction of the south.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

elliotm, America's greatness is a direct result of the entrepreneurship brought about by Capitalism. Capitalism allows you to achieve everything you desire, limited only by your own desires and ability. With Socialism, would we have had Steve Jobs starting up a computer business in his garage (Apple)? I think not. Socialism smothers ingenuity and rewards mediocrity.

Show me one socialist country that is not an economic basket-case. Cuba? Venezuela? Where? Surely not in Europe. Every country in Europe is on the brink of becoming the next Greece. Admittedly, we are also. But, it is entirely because we are adopting socialist ideals (cash for clunkers, stimulus bills, TARP). None of these were successful, although the Obama Zombies will tell you they were a HUGE success. Money being taken out of taxpayer coffers cannot be viewed as a success.

You can keep socialism in Europe. Our experiment in socialism will end in November of this year.


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Socialism is failing in Europe (and it is). So how do you think it would work here?

When you give away something for free then more is expected. It's human nature to do less when there is free. This is why Greece is being torn apart as you read this.

If I spend my time unproductive and waiting for my handout check, is it fair that you should pay my bills? Would you? Is it morally right or wrong for your government to make you pay my way?

And let's be very clear. We're not talking about those very few who truly cannot make a living.

The only time Jesus rose up against the wealthy was when he cast out the money changers. But there are always bad ones everywhere. Joseph of Arimathea was weathy and Jesus did not have a problem with him or his wealth.

See, we need to be clear with full discloser.

If you look at socialism you will find only two classes of people - the rich and poor. So, greed is also rampant in socialism. The difference is in the US people work and earn their greed, in socialistic countries, greed is not earned but taxed.

Obama never held a real job in his life. He got all his money through the taxpayer and was educated at taxpayer expense. He is worth over $4 million and has not produced anything useful. Is that fair to you in your position? Would Obama have made it if he earned it?

Perhaps you don't understand because to understand something you have to think and reason about it. Socialism may "feel good" but you can't make decision with emotions. It just doesn't work.

BTW - It is impossible to create equal opportunity because we are not all equal. Everyone has their own set of tools, fears, thoughts, and so on. Have you ever tried to treat everyone you know equally? Equal is a math term meaning everything is exactly the same. It doesn't compute with humans.

Try sending everyone to eat at the same place. You'll find that not everybody likes it. So socialism is about control because you're making everyone eat at the same place. Your also take their libery away because you leave them no choice. That is the big lie about socialism.

Try it on yourself (if you dare), see if you like it? Treat yourself like someone you know "equally". That is do what they do, eat what they eat, etc.. Remember, your equal - Right?


elliotm 6 years ago

The wealthy in society are by enlarge those with the biggest potential to grow they're fortune. The reality is that the American dream is a carrot on a stick. I fail to understand why in the U.S, blue collar workers with the most to gain from socialism seem so opposed to it. Socialism is not about robbing people of their religion or giving the homeless and hapless free state supported lives. It is about creating equality of opportunity and preventing the wealthy from using their money to rig the game and create modern day dynasties. I also don't understand why Christians seem opposed to socialism, when the new testament is very much a socialist series of documents. I think it would be a very fair statement to say that the new testament suggests that Jesus resented the greed of the wealthy and sought to raise up the poor and destitute. Obama is hardly a socialist by any educated perspective but if he was it should be applauded, not fear or hated but I guess McCarthyism dies hard.


pager7 profile image

pager7 6 years ago from Kampala-Uganda

American politics is very interesting


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

There is nothing to understand. When you take money from someone else without their permission (and that's what law does), it's stealing. Plain and simple.

Instead of holding and honoring a true value, it's dismissed for a false value that is empty and based on a religious like emotion that is used to justify wrong doing.

This is the real world we live in. The idealistic world that the left wants does not exist no matter how good it feels. The left does not want to deal with reality for fear of being tagged as the bad guy or it doesn't benefit them directly.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

Joe, I simply don't understand how taking money out of the hands of consumers can equate as "the country thriving" as SOBF indicated. He has yet to provide a link to his claim that proves the country is thriving. I guess 15 million unemployed Americans might have a say on that. He is a typical "liberal" as Thomas Sowell indicated not long ago. And, as you indicate, they enjoy spreading the wealth just fine. Just keep your hands off their "wealth."


joer4x4 profile image

joer4x4 6 years ago from Philadelphia, PA

Our tax burden is climbing if you count state and local governments (and wait till health care kicks in). New taxes are being proposed and legislated every day across the nation. State and local governments are broke and are (and have been) reducing services. More money is needed to pay for retirement plans and benefits for growing government workers, new union contracts, and handouts.

If you buy less from private company, you pay less. But when government reduces services, taxpayers do not get a refund on those services under the weight of law, government keeps it.

During the 20s and 30s taxes were as high as 70% in some areas. This government action plunged us into the depression. When government stopped spending in 1946, the private sector was able to produce goods and services and finally we came out of it. But much of that has been rewritten since it doesn't serve the purpose of those who want to control.

Look at Europe. Since the end of WWII, the only thing they have been producing is vacations. Now they are rioting in the streets because government is taking away their entitlements (that they never earned anyway). But on the other hand, those people have been paying through the nose.

If government was a private company, they would be tagged as evil.

When you get a free entitlement, you always get less than you need or want. When you pay for someone else's entitlement you have less than you need or want.

Spreading the wealth doesn't help anyone and if you want it to be spread you're part of the problem. Go work for it.

And let's not confuse the issue for the very few who truely can not earn a living. Even they don't want something for nothing.

I find it interesting the Al Gore and Clinton types never spread their wealth. They use our money. Isn't that a hypocrite - or is that another evil word the left is trying to abolish?


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

Oh, typical "regressive." You are so superior, aren't you? You must greatly admire our socialist in chief.

Actually, SOBF, you were the one who addressed your race in your hub, "as I was paying my taxes today." I read where you bragged about being a "black progressive liberal". So, if that bothers you, I suggest you change it. I know a setup when I see one. That is why I gave you the answer you didn't want. Let me ask you this; what country in history has ever taxed and spent itself out of a recession? In fact, show me one socialist economy that is working today (not counting the USA)? Like all regressives you think the government has a better idea how to spend taxpayer money than the ordinarly working man. It is people like you who have gotten this country in the shape it is today. I count "W" as among you regressives as well.


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

Writer David,

I am somewhat amused by the fact that I am the only poster that you felt a need to address by their race. Actually not only didn't you answer my question but you skated around it with the skill of a olympian, but I didn't expect anything more.

This country has survived, no thrived with a much higher tax rate (more than double) than we are subject to today.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

SOBF,

By reading that you are a "black, liberal, progressive" I'm sure you can enlighten me on the tax rate. I am sure you will also tell me our tax rate is low in comparison to the rate historically. I am sure you will also tell me that Barack Obama is responsible for this "low end tax rate." I can tell you, however, that with the advent of the "free health care" our tax rate will jump to the point those redneck, blue collar, bible thumping, gun toting, anti-illegal immigrant, conservatives will not be able to manage their household finances. I say that will go for "progressives" as well. But, unfortunately, some people have to find out things the hard way.

Am I close to answering your question? Probably not since I am not a student of the historical tax rate. But, dumb conservative that I am, I can look at my pay stub and realize one simple fact...the tax rate is too damn much. Thanks for stopping by.


SOBF profile image

SOBF 6 years ago from New York, NY

Writer David

Just out of curiosity where do we stand historically on our current burdensome tax rate? I other words are we currently on a high or low end of the scale?


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

Sheri, that is just one more point that the MSM likes to overlook is how rich Reid, Gore (due to his global warming BS) and Pelosi are, while they are trying to destroy the American middle-class. No taxes for those making under $250K??? I hope the chumps that bought that line get socked harder with the Obama VAT than anyone else.


SheriSapp profile image

SheriSapp 6 years ago from West Virginia

Sorry I am so late with my comment on this little gem. I agree that idiot boy/man does better when he sticks to the script. The thing that i really don't understand is why BO, Gore, Pelosi, Reid etc... are all SO RICH!!! If they are so very concerned about the plight of the poor, why don't they give away THEIR money and leave mine alone!?


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

JWest, it seems Oprah served her purpose and he no longer needs her. Her advocacy for Obama hurt her ratings. She denies it. But, her show has never recovered. Of course, I doubt she really cares any longer. She got what she wanted also; Obama in the White House.


JWestCattle profile image

JWestCattle 6 years ago from Texas

I agree, it is really strange that Oprah seems to have gone so very silent, and I really don't think Obama, or the actual powers that may be at the root and essence of how Obama presents himself, give one wit about America's heart and soul..only about milking it dry for the benefit of the 'globe'.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

Sheila, funny how you don't hear much about Oprah since he become President. During the election, all you heard about was Obama, Obama, Obama on Oprah. Yep, this country is headed toward the European model. I mean, why not? We already have their healthcare plan.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas

Yes! Wait and see what happens when he does away with America's heart and soul...The Productive Class!


sheila b. profile image

sheila b. 6 years ago

I wonder if he thinks Oprah has enough money? Does he have enough, with his millions from book sales? Or is it just the middle class who have to accept spreading the wealth? So that America can be like most countries, with two classes, the rich and the poor.


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

BJ, it may be that you can make all you want! But, just make sure you dole out 50-60% to Barack Obama's entitlement programs that are most certainly on the horizon!

Wayne, I always thought Nixon was the closest thing we have ever had that could have become a dictator. Obama is very close, very close to becoming a full fledged monarch. Like all dictators, he doesn't take criticism well at all. Expect that to become an issue very soon with people like Beck, Limbaugh and Malkin who constantly attack the anointed one. His weakness, as you point out, is that he thinks everyone is stupid except him. That arrogance is going to do him in eventually.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas

In my lifetime, there is not one President that I fear more than this one. There have been some odd ones, some stupid ones, and some who did nothing at all. But this guy takes the cake. He might as well be standing on the podium openly saying "Hey America, I think you are stupid". His actions demonstrates that he certainly believes that. If not, I would think he might try to be a bit more covert in his approach. America send Bush Sr. home after one term for far less infractions that this one has already committed. I just hope we see the same way in 2012. Thanks for a good hub, David. WB


BJBenson profile image

BJBenson 6 years ago from USA

I would like to know how much I'm allowed to earn. I don't want to set my old American goal too high!


Writer David profile image

Writer David 6 years ago from Mobile, AL Author

Jon, it is perfectly apparent why the MSM is not reporting what is really going on with the Obama administration. They are in the same bed with them. It has been often said that the night that President Obama won the election, "the MSM went from watch dog of the government, to guard dog of the government." They are, in essence, the American Pravda.


JON EWALL profile image

JON EWALL 6 years ago from usa

Writer David

If you missed the 4/29/10 Glen Beck show ON Fox News cable,the expose got much bigger. Urgent Viewing for all Huber's interested in finding the truth of who is running the country and why. The big question really is why has the mainstream media been so silent on what's happening in Washington.

hubbers

for once check Beck this week. the red phone ( white house ) has not rung. The man I believe is fearful for his life after this weeks shows.

GOLDMAN SACHS

dog and pony show cover up

The players should be Goldman Sachs (front lines ) Fannie mae ,Senator Dodd,congressman Frank and Frank Raines, Obama , Jarret and the Joyce foundation, Sachs employees in our government

America needs to wake up to corruption in our government!

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working