Skip to content

Socialism is a Code Word for Black?

October 21, 2008

 It was only a matter of time before we read an article like this one that claims the word socialism is a code word for black. This is part of an ongoing attempt to intimidate Barack Obama’s opponents and critics into remaining silent. As soon people who oppose Barack Obama find an issue or a statement that Barack Obama utters, such as spreading the wealth around, that can be used against him and have the audacity (of hope) to actually speak out against him, they are immediately accused of using code words for racism, or called racists outright.

 This is an attempt to silence his opponents using the cunning strategy of political correctness, which in itself is an attack on free speech, to guilt and intimidate people into being so careful not to be looked on as racists that they dare not have a negative word to say against him. Instead of arguing for Obama and his policies, instead of debating the issues, they find it much easier to just intimidate the opposition through ugly, unfounded, and untrue charges.

 I look at Barack Obama’s policies and I see a socialist. That and only that is what I judge him on, and I don’t like him. If judging his policies makes me a racist, than fuck it, I guess I am a racist.

7 Comments leave one →
  1. October 21, 2008 9:54 pm

    Link is broken. way to fail.

    p.s.
    you clearly dont know what socialism is

    Like

  2. October 22, 2008 7:43 am

    By strict definition of the word, Obama is not a socialist.

    “An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning. “

    I’m not familiar with the parts of Obama’s plan where he intends to take over industries and starts running them. The only evidence I seen is when he made a gaffe and told Joe that he wants to spread the wealth.

    No, Obama is no more a socialist than McCain is a corporatist (corporatism can lead to fascism ).

    Like

  3. October 22, 2008 7:50 am

    I hit submit too quick.

    As for the equating socialism and racism, some people are not very imaginative or have a very limited sense of vocabulary. They are like the little boy who cried wolf. If they keep this up, when there is an actual case of racism, nobody is going to pay attention.

    Like

  4. October 22, 2008 7:15 pm

    Mike, the link still works for me it looks as though only you have failed.

    Terrant and Mike, from American Heritage:

    “There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy”

    Obama’s spreading the wealth comment is what I am talking about when I call him a socialist, and using the above quote he can be defined as a socialist. What better way to control the economy in a capitalist nation than deciding who gets to keep their money and who doesn’t?
    But the point of this post was what Terrant hit on in his last statement. The idea that calling someone a socialist is a racist comment just because the person is black is just insulting, which is why I gave up defending myself and just said fine, I must be a racist. Like you said Terrant, I have heard them cry wolf for far too long and I am about ready to give in and stop paying attention.

    Like

  5. October 22, 2008 10:36 pm

    Personally, ending corporate welfare is not socialism in my book.

    The flaw with supply side economics is that business has no interest in charging less for their goods and services than what the market can bear and business has no interest in paying employees more than what the market says they are worth. Businesses don’t employ people out of charity. If someone is needed, they get hired. When they are no longer needed, they are kicked to the curb.

    Its one thing to take wealth and spread it around when are successful without the help of the government. It another thing to end policies that favor business when they they become detrimental to those who make that wealth possible. Given the pain that the middle class has been feeling lately, it’s time to shift some of the tax burden back to business.

    Like

  6. hazeleyes permalink
    October 23, 2008 11:57 am

    Government involvement makes such ‘tax-burden shifting” very costly and causes many unintended consequences both to those who do and do not want higher tax on business.

    Higher tax on business results in higher unemployment. When taxes are raised on businesses, they do not hire new employees and they lay off people who already are employed.

    It always happens and if business taxes are raised again it’ll happen again. If Americans want more jobs, they should demand lower business taxes because only then can more business and more jobs be created to answer the need for jobs.

    Higher tax on business results in less money spent on research which produces products that people need, such as but not limited to medicines, medical equipment, life-saving technologies and safety technologies and products.

    Because of higher taxes and the rising expense of benefits, research budgets are all-but-nonexistent. A research budget of 5% of total revenue is unusually high in the US, and the first cut most companies are likely to make in downturns is in the research budget. This means fewer research projects (fewer jobs), less product creation (fewer critical products to choose from or disappearance of those that exist), less or lower-quality product testing, and outsourcing of research functions (loss of US research jobs and the safety of US manufacturing standards and requirements).

    Some of the tradeoffs that come with Americans’ demand for higher business taxes, lower prices, higher job benefits,
    are:
    less high-quality testing or less total testing,
    lower quality products,
    lower safety,
    the loss of jobs in the US,
    oursourcing to places that have no quality control or standards of manufacturing.

    Higher tax on business results in US businesses moving to countries where taxes are lower. In such places people are glad to get the work but they don’t necessarily follow US safety, manufacturing, or other beneficial standards, nor do other counties have the regulations that US businesses do.

    The US has lost whole industries (steel production is one notable one but it’s not alone), because many industries that paid high hourly wages that supported lots of American families now are gone from our economy and won’t be back.

    Now people gripe that “Bush made it happen”. , but NO, Americans who voted for congressional candidates who believe in raising tax on business made it happen. Additionally the high costs of “environmental” regulation such as retooling, refitting, reengineering, retesting, and manufacturing changes, along with onerous government documentation that necessitated that businesses, hospitals, and other pillars of the US economy had hire workers for unproductive busy-work jobs drove many American companies out of business or offshore and has ‘disappeared’ hospitals throughout the nation. And the replacement of traditional lucrative American jobs with burger-flipping has not been the panacea The Greens and government said it would — only an idiot could have believed it could.

    Taxes on business deprive people of entry level jobs in the types of businesses where they might train for something better, learn to be valuable productive employees, prosper, earn benefits, and support families. That is because taxes on business deprive business of the dollars that business could otherwise spend on jobs, training, and benefits.

    People who want such things should vote for candidates who want lower taxes across the board (personal and business) because as counter-intuitive as it may seem, lower taxes mean that businesses create more jobs because they need more employees in order to meet the purchasing demands of individuals who are able to keep more of their earnings and so purchase more.

    Low tax rates means government receives more business tax dollars because net business income increases (so more dollars are created without higher tax rates). And more than that, because when businesses and individuals have more money to work with, they expand production, build new plants, open new locations, and create other businesses, and so do their suppliers, which results in tidal waves of more dollars paid to government in taxes. It also creates millions more jobs.

    A good exmple is the explosion of tax dollars into the Treasury after the Reagan tax cut, and the explosion of new business and new jobs, as well as new individual savings and spending. And that lasted through the Clinton administration. The decline at the end of Clinton was the result of rising taxation over Clinton’s 8 years, not the fault of the new Bush admin.

    Believe me, I’ve lived a long time and one of the incontravertible facts of life is that when taxes rise it’s harder to get jobs and everything costs more. When taxes fall there are more jobs, people have more money to buy goods, and goods are cheaper. That’s what drives the economy.

    Maybe government should close its doors. We wouldn’t have to pay politicians or government workers, whose salaries and benefits cost us billions and who are completely unproductive. The addition of those billions to our economy, forever, would be the best stimulus package of all and would eliminate taxes altogether, whereupon companies from around the world would want to move here because American workers are the most productive in the world, and our economy would soar. Very few people would require public assistance, and that ought to be up to states and municipalities, anyway, to administer, keeping costs down by hiring local folks.

    Like

  7. October 23, 2008 7:53 pm

    How supply side economics works and theory and how supply side economics works in reality are widely divergent. If a cut in taxes to businesses brings in more tax revenue, then why did Regan and both Bushes have budget deficits?

    Tax breaks do not create jobs. Businesses do not create jobs just because they have extra money. They keep as minimal of a work force as needed so to keep profits maximized. I have yet to see a company that says, hey we saved $200K in taxes, let’s hire 3 people that we don’t need.

    Businesses cannot exist in a vacuum. If you have businesses without customers, the businesses will fail. If you have customers without businesses, businesses will be created. Also, remember that consumer spending is a very large part of the economic activity. Frankly, the consumers are hurting right now which is what is killing the economy.

    A lot of the problems now is are partially a result of these policies. Instead of waiting for a significant raise in REAL wages that will never come, people have resorted to using credit to improve their quality of life. As we can see, this is having dire consequences as the house of cards is starting to collapse.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: