Our Marxist Wizard of Oz

[SiriuslyLong]

The opponents of Obama consider him as socialist. But, the actual socialists do not call him as socialist. This is the opinion of Billy Wharton who is the co-chairman of socialist party in USA. He says that Obama is neither a socialist nor a liberal. Obama was described by other socialists as the one who safeguards the wealth of the top five richest people of America. Democratic socialism involves protecting common man from unregulated capitalism by the rules and taxation.

Since about 50 years socialist revolutions are fighting with the capitalism in United States. The socialists were trying hard to transform this nation into socialist country. But, several Americans were not ready to accept this while Barrack Obama was supported by the young people in this regard. Obama said that everyone in the US has the right to get Health care. This opinion of Obama is also the major belief of Socialist Party in USA. The labor unions were given permission to organize without a secret ballot which was also strongly believed by the Socialist party.

The socialist party in USA visualizes the need for having right for everyone to have adequate house. Obama was observed to have suggested the ACORN (association of community organization for reform now) workers to arrange for mortgages that have enough security. This was told to be given for the sufficient number of people who were unqualified. Socialist party in USA thinks that socialism does not go hand in hand with capitalism at any time. Obama has worked in Annenberg challenge along with Bill Ayers to propose $5 million for education projects on anti-capitalism. Socialist party has supported the six months residency as the necessity for citizenship in US. Obama has also supported the illegal immigrants in Chicago standing for comprehensive immigration amendment. When socialist party wanted the US troops to immediately move away from Iraq, Obama was ready to end the war irrespective of failure or victory. Obama also supported disarmament suggested by the socialists and also encouraged ‘livable guaranteed annual income,. Obama also promised to elevate the tax burden on the rich, to balance the wealth towards the poor.

These are some of the evidences to say that Obama is a socialist.

http://www.knowswhy.com/why-is-obama-a-socialist/

[Havakasha]

CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top Fox News Executive Admits Lying On-Air About Obama
March 29, 2011 8:03 am ET by Eric Hananoki

In newly uncovered audio, a Fox News executive boasts that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism."

Speaking in 2009 onboard a pricey Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation." Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that "privately" he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched."

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290006

[SiriuslyLong]

Peter Schiff gets in on the act!! Warning to Hava-gafa-kasha, this has math in it. I know it's hard, but if you take your time...................

Why Buy the Cow?

By: Peter Schiff
Monday, March 5, 2012

The communist revolutions in the 20th century sought to nationalize the wealth generated by privately held industries back to the “exploited” workers on whose backs the profits were supposedly derived. America has made the rejection of this idea and its support of free market principles the centerpiece of its economic narrative. However, as a result of our current and proposed tax policies towards corporate shareholders, our government collects a portion of industrial output that would inspire envy in even the most rabid Bolshevik.

The purpose of a corporation is to generate profits for owners (all other functions are secondary to this goal). Public corporations distribute these profits through dividends. But as a result of America's system of double taxation, where income is taxed on the corporate level and then again on the personal level, government receives a much bigger share of corporate income than the owners themselves. I also address this topic in my latest video blog.

Suppose a publicly held U.S. corporation made one million dollars in income over the course of a year. Currently its profits would be taxed at a 35% level (for the purpose of this example I will not factor in the lower rate that is applied to its first $100K of profits), meaning that the company would have to pay $350,000 directly to the government (assuming it earned its income without special tax breaks). Of the $650,000 that remained, the typical dividend-paying corporation might distribute 40 percent to shareholders (this is known as the "payout ratio" and the actual average is slightly below 40%). So in this instance the company would pay $260,000 (40% of $650,000) to shareholders. The remaining $390,000 would typically be held as "retained earnings," and would be used to maintain and replace depreciating equipment, make capital investments, fund research and development, and expand operations. If the company did not make such investments it would be impossible for it to survive and its ability to perpetuate profit distributions would be limited.

These retained earnings still represent assets to shareholders, but their primary purpose is to generate future profits and higher dividends. However, shareholders do not directly benefit from those retained earnings until future distributions are paid. Sure they can sell their shares at a gain, paying a capital gains tax in the process, but this merely transfers those deferred benefits to the new buyer.

When received by shareholders, the $260,000 in dividends are taxed again at a rate of 15 percent (according to current law). As a result, shareholders receive just $221,000 of the million dollar profit. The $39,000 in dividend taxes are added to the $350,000 “off the top” corporate tax to bring the government’s total take of the company’s profits to just a shade under $390,000. In other words the government gets about 75% more cash flow from the company than the actual owners. Looked at in a slightly different way, the government gets about 65% of the non-retained earnings while shareholders, who put up the money and take all the risk, get 35%. Does this seem fair?

This level of taxation puts American corporations at a noticeable disadvantage vis-a-vis companies in the countries against which we are most keenly competing. In China, the slicing of the pie is much more favorable to owners. There, corporations are taxed at a rate of 25% and dividends at 10%. Using these numbers (and the same payout ratio used for the U.S. corporation), the Chinese government gets 51% of distributed corporate profits and shareholders get 49%. In Hong Kong (which is part of Communist China), the situation is even better. There, the corporate tax rate is 16% and the personal dividend rate is zero. If you do the math there, the government gets 33% and the shareholders get 67%.

This comparison raises an interesting point. If shareholders in communist China are allowed to keep more of their earnings than shareholders in capitalist America, which nation is more communist and which more capitalist?

Late last month the Obama Administration and Mitt Romney offered competing proposals on corporate tax reform that both politicians say would make U.S. corporations more competitive. Romney’s plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 25% while maintaining the dividend tax at 15%. This makes things slightly better, sending 54% of distributed earnings to the government and 46% to shareholders (not quite as generous as Communist China). Not surprisingly however the Obama plan will make things much more difficult.

Although the President proposes lowering the corporate tax rate to 28% he also wants to scrap the dividend tax and instead tax the distributions as ordinary income. In practice, the vast majority of individual recipients of dividends fall into the higher end of the income spectrum. Which means a very large chunk of these dividends will be taxed at the highest personal rate of 39%. But Obama also wants to subject these high earners to a surtax to pay for his health care initiative, which means that many of the recipients will be taxed at a rate of 44% (this also accounts for the phase out of personal deductions for higher earners!) So for these high-income earners, using our current example, the new distribution split with the government under Obama’s proposals will be about 70/30 in favor of the government. This is actually worse than the status quo.

But it’s actually much worse than that. The corporate income tax is just one of the veins that corporations open for government. Think about all the other taxes that corporations pay, such as the payroll taxes and sales taxes. Sure they pass those taxes on to their employees and customers, but the revenue flows 100% to the government with shareholders getting nothing but a bill for the cost of collection.

Then there are all of the taxes paid directly by the employees themselves on their wages and salaries. Sure, this money belongs to employees and not shareholders, but if not for the profit-making activities of corporations, those wages and salaries, and resulting taxes, could not have been paid. And while employees derive benefits from those after tax distributions too, shareholders get nothing. When all of these channels are factored in, think about how much more the government derives in taxes from corporate activity than its owners receive in dividends. Who knows how high this figure is, but I’m sure the government’s take is many multiples of what shareholders receive.

Finish it up: http://www.europac.net/commentaries/why_buy_cow

Or was it too simplistic????????????????

[SiriuslyLong]

Hava-gafa-kasha believes we should "learn" something from China. He loves thier "system" and the way their government runs things. I suppose if we really want to be like China, we should embrace their policy on corporate taxation and NOT Obama's?

[SiriuslyLong]

Thursday, March 8, 2012
...And Yes, Barack Obama is a Marxist

It’s been four years and the mainstream media still refuses to address the fact that Barack Obama is a Marxist. In fact using that word gets you branded as a crazy (guilty but not on this issue) and someone who uses divisive "tone.

Some who brand Obama Marxist use as their evidence his policies such as the takeover of the domestic auto business, Obamacare, "redistribution of income" etc. Others examine his associations, from Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers to people he hired such as Van Jones and Rev. Jim Wallis. While valid, the examples above are purely circumstantial.

I use a simpler and more direct method of proving my case. When the President was running for the Illinois State Senate, not only did he run with the endorsement of a local socialist organization, but also he signed a contract with one of them, The New Party. The party was a Marxist Political coalition. This was not guilt by association thing. Senator Obama sought out their nomination. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement which required that he sign a contract with the group.

Read on about The New Party: http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2012/...s-marxist.html

The authors evidence starts in italics.

[SiriuslyLong]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...ist-too-video/

Man, it's hard to keep up with all the news about Obama's belief in Marxism.

[SiriuslyLong]

I never knew Jon Voight was such a vocal opponent of Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4

Jon Voight is right.

[Havakasha]

More socialist conspiracy theories. lol

For a guy who's supposedly sorry for his unfortunate word choice—for three hours a day, for three days straight—not to mention a man who claims to be "huge on personal responsibility and accountability," Rush Limbaugh can't seem to stop finding new people to blame for his slut crusade against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke.

After issuing his non-apology, in which he basically said he was sorry for calling Sandra Fluke a slut, but if she weren't such a slut, he wouldn't have had to call her a slut, he then explained his non-apology by saying Barack Obama's "socialist agenda" made him do it and that he "became like them" and "descended to their level" by attacking Ms. Fluke for the better part of a week.

[Havakasha]

CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top Fox News Executive Admits Lying On-Air About Obama
March 29, 2011 8:03 am ET by Eric Hananoki

In newly uncovered audio, a Fox News executive boasts that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism."

Speaking in 2009 onboard a pricey Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation." Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that "privately" he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched."

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290006

[SiriuslyLong]

This thread is about Obama and his Marxist beliefs. If you'd like to start a new thread, you are free to do so. The two posts above add nothing to the discourse, but then again, you are unable of discourse due to your radical extreme left wing rigid ideology.