Complete Idiots Guide to Obama's Socialism  Most likely this book will not show up in any bookstores near you. But you can get The Complete Idiot's Guide to Communism. Aside from the murdering millions part, Obama's brand of socialism is not much different.
Part of Malagent's NObama '08 Campaign. Don't forget to Digg this image! Feel free to steal this image and put it wherever you want to. All I ask is that you don't change it. If you want something different then make your own like I did! If someone asks nicely, I may even provide a great vector template to use. Heck, you could even use it to make fun of me - it is still a free country after all! Undoubtedly, some Obama supporters, Democrats, and/or Liberals will call me a Fascist for making this. Well I have a suggestion: Rather than simply slinging the word fascist at anyone who is openly conservative, how about actually debating the issues? Why not try and convince me to support Obama? Or perhaps tell me where I'm wrong? I know, I know - the gratuitous labeling of those who disagree as "fascist" or "NEOCON" is much easier than debating issues. But why not give it a try sometime? Comments
malagent says:Chicago Man, "yet your whole point of this was to label someone you disagree with as a socialist" Responding to my comments, pictures, blog posts, and videos by simply labeling me as a fascist or racist is so common that I cannot list all instances here, but you get the idea. I disagree with Obama because his positions and policies either are socialist or lean towards socialism. This image is made in the same spirit as political cartoons as a way of expressing my views regarding the candidate. I believe it to be very respectful, particularly when compared to the numerous images of President Bush portraying him as Hitler. So which part of my "mocking" of Obama is inaccurate? He did support the Global Poverty Act. His policies do equate to a redistribution of wealth. The pie comment, as I'm sure you probably know if you have payed any attention to the campaign at all, is from Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama campaigns for her husband and delivers stump speeches on his behalf on a regular basis. "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."– Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama April 08, 2008 Charlotte, NC This is not unique to Barack & Michelle Obama. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."–Hillary Clinton If there is any doubt that Obama's (and Clinton's) policies are socialist: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."–Karl Marx To each according to their contribution is considered by Marxists and other socialists as a characteristic of society after a socialist revolution and before the transition to communism. "Communism and fascism or Nazism, although poles apart in their intellectual content, are similar in this, that both have emotional appeal to the type of personality that takes pleasure in being submerged in a mass movement and submitting to superior authority." Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )
malagent says:Kier42, "Obama's Socialism? Wow, the idea that a President might actually want to do what's best for "we the people" rather than "we the corporations" is now called socialism? Well, I guess it is a form of it," So socialism is "what is best" for the people? If you feel this way, are there not already socialist nations you could relocate to? "but that the conservatives have been doing is a form of fascism. We've seen the rise of the corporation with so much power that they now get to make policy within our government. the merger of corporation and state is fascism in the most basic sense." I linked to a book in my description above, perhaps you should read it. If you are too socialist to purchase the book—in fear that you might contribute to the success of some fascist corporation—I'm sure you could find a stolen copy on the internet somewhere. "I'm sure you hate welfare, but why is it that we give billions of dollars in tax breaks to Exxon when they make record profits every year? Or bail out Savings & Loans when they go under because they made bad deals, or mortgage companies that make bad loans." Tax breaks are given to corporations to encourage risk taking and growth. As a small business owner (a corporation) I was given the same and greater tax breaks. The net benefit is that my business, like the large corporations, provided goods and services for society and jobs for the people in my community. You automatically attack Exxon (actually it is Exxon Mobil Corporation) for their "record profits" - First of all do you even know who owns the corporation? In case you don't, it is the people of this country. See here. Additionally, the profit margins— the ratio of aftertax profits before extraordinary items to sales—are not huge, obscene, or even as much as most other industries. The profit of "big oil" is a product of high demand for oil - not some evil price fixing. In fact, the Oil & Energy sector profits are low compared to other industries such as retail (27%), Pharmaceuticals/Biotech (19%), Banking/financial (18%), Household & Personal Products (11.4%), and so on, even telecommunications is above Energy at 9.1%. So I wonder where is the cutoff in your support of socialist policies like Obama's windfall profits tax? Where is the cutoff for windfall profits? Is it a dollar amount? A percentage of GDP? A net profit margin? Or is it just if they make more money then they did before as in the case of Exxon Mobile Corp. making "record profits every year"? That is what they are supposed to do - Make profits for their shareholders. Those shareholders as I pointed out above are people like you and me and the funds and institutions people like us invest in. Well 98.5% anyway, 1.5% is corporate insiders. Aside from all that the "evil" oil companies, from 1977-2004 made over $643 billion in profits! But, during that time span, their disgusting "corporate welfare" situation allowed them to pay a paltry $1.343 TRILLION in state and federal taxes. The oil companies already pay more in taxes than they make in profits, which is a fact rarely, if ever, mentioned by those wanting to impose windfall taxes like Obama. So do I understand you correctly, that you support a policy of taking the profits from a company that is voluntarily owned by the people of this country, to punish them for making money? This is what you call best for the people? "Or bail out Savings & Loans when they go under because they made bad deals, or mortgage companies that make bad loans." I do not support or agree with bailouts or legislation such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Insuring people generously against risks encourages greater risk taking. In some cases this can be good such as corporate shareholders being protected by the corporate veil. In other cases it can be bad. As in a borrower being bailed out when he/she borrowed above their means. Or a mortgage company being bailed out after loaning to people without credit or means. The Republicans are very guilty of everything you claim Obama will do, but have you actually read his economic policy?" Some Republicans are guilty sure, but not all of them. Just as some Democrats are guilty of it and some are not. I am not basing my support or opposition of any candidate based on party lines. To do so is myopic at best. As I have stated in many other comments, I base my support or opposition on how closely aligned a particular candidates policies are to my own values and beliefs, coupled with that candidates voting records and experience. I encourage others to do the same. If that leads one to support Obama, great. So long as it is support for some other reason than "He's a Democrat and I hate Republicans" Basing political decisions solely on hyper-partisanship is abuse of democracy and is one of the most destructive forms of laziness and ignorance. And yes, I have read all six pages of Lord Obama's tax economic policy. It leaves much to the imagination, which "The Average American will not pay any more taxes, in fact they'll pay less and the top 5% will now have to pay their share, but not any more than they did under Clinton, when they made a LOT of money." I am so glad you made that statement. It is indicative of how out of touch you and Obama's policies are with the reality in America. Let's start with the average American. I assume you are speaking in terms of financial status, so I will define average: Fortunately for me, I have already done thathere. According to the US Census Bureau. Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement the median U.S. household income is $48,201.00[1] The median income per household member (including all working and non-working members above the age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006. Of the 116,011,000 households in the United States. 19.26% had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[2] while only 12.3% fell below the federal poverty threshold[3]. Barack Obama's policies would most certainly increase taxes on those making greater than $32,000/year. which constitutes a majority of Americans. "the top 5% will now have to pay their share" What is "their share" exactly? Currently the top 5% of wage earners pay 60.14% of federal income tax! It is interesting to not that the top 5% earn $153,542/year or greater[4]. Which is not exactly "super rich" - How much do you earn? If you are a professional in many fields you could very well earn that much or more. While we are on the subject of how much we pay in taxes and people paying their share, let's look at some of the other percentile ranges as well to make sure they are being screwed fairly... The Top 1% earn $388,806/year or greater and pay 39.89% of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50%, those earning under $31,987/year pay an absurdly low 2.99% in of all federal income taxes. If you bother to actually check my references on these facts you will see that the higher income earners have actually paid more under the Bush administration and the lower income earners pay less while the opposite was true under your venerated Clinton administration. I will also not that those that pay the least in taxes also receive the most in services from the government. That is socialism already, we have too much of it already and we do not need any more. So again: What is "their share"? 1. pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new04_00 1.htm 2. pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_00 0.htm 3. www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf [PDF file] 4. www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink ) 
actonengine24
|
[?]
This photo also belongs to:
TagsAdditional Information
|
||||||||||||||||
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Finding location...
Kier42
says:
Obama's Socialism? Wow, the idea that a President might actually want to do what's best for "we the people" rather than "we the corporations" is now called socialism? Well, I guess it is a form of it, but that the conservatives have been doing is a form of fascism. We've seen the rise of the corporation with so much power that they now get to make policy within our government. the merger of corporation and state is fascism in the most basic sense.
I'm sure you hate welfare, but why is it that we give billions of dollars in tax breaks to Exxon when they make record profits every year? Or bail out Savings & Loans when they go under because they made bad deals, or mortgage companies that make bad loans. The Republicans have used tax payer money to bail out these companies making "we the people" assume all the risk w/o getting to share in any of the reward. That's socialism AND redistribution of wealth from the bottom up.
The Republicans are very guilty of everything you claim Obama will do, but have you actually read his economic policy? The Average American will not pay any more taxes, in fact they'll pay less and the top 5% will now have to pay their share, but not any more than they did under Clinton, when they made a LOT of money.
Let's face it, it is the Republican economics that have put this country $1,500,000,000,000 in debt to China, not to mention what we owe to Saudi Arabia. This after the only president in 30 years finished his term with a budget surplus.
Posted 11 months ago. ( permalink )