Obama and his Dad's paper on Socialism

I did a blog on this a couple years back (or at least it feels like a couple years, and I didn't look it up). Barak H. Obama, Sr. wrote a critique of Sessional paper No. 10 called Problems Facing Our Socialism. Here's a copy on line of that critique: http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

I thought with 3 and a half years of President Obama's administration behind us, I would revisit this. A lot has changed, and I've learned a lot, so I wanted to look with fresh eyes at the comparison. I'll put direct quotes from the critique in quotation marks.

"If it is accepted that it is the leaders of a country who usually formulate and define ideologies, then the only source for this definition would be to get it from them either through their speeches, press reports or papers or through their actions."

Could this be why President Obama's administration refuses to admit to our definition of Socialism? Remember the media person who claimed we're all socialists? They down grade and try to make socialism palatable. It shouldn't be palatable to ANY natural born American. According to Sr. Obama, we need only look at their actions, speeches and press reports to define their ideology. How many industries did President Obama nationalize? The car industry, banks, etc. That's one definition of socialism. Spreading the wealth is another facit of socialism.

"After all, how can one talk of the independence of something people do not know?"

Is this the reason that President Obama and his people constantly attack the Tea Party movement? They want the "unwashed masses" to not fully understand the Tea Party or what's really going on in Washington. They want them to concentrate on what they're trying to scare them with. The claim that the Republicans want to take everything away from them (welfare, social security, SSI for the disabled, military pay and military retirement pay). What they don't say is that it is the President's responsibility to determine what gets paid. So, if he defaults on anything, he chose to. Also, do a little research into Communist countries, like China.  There is no welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc., in China.  You don't work, you don't eat.  They also hide this fact from the public so no one knows what Obama really wants.  Yea, Communism, they say to the ones who know no better.  Communism is utopia.  But once their base of voters who get all the government handouts get him re-elected, all the benies will go away.  Let's sit back and watch the ghetto revolt then.  We, who are used to working for a living, will last a little longer.

"...differ from scientific socialism unless one takes the statement 'society in turn will reward these efforts' to be different than 'reward to each according to his needs.'"

Yes, these two statements are different. Society rewards differently than a government would. And who can quantify needs? Is this like everyone needs a cell phone, because it's just safer? If you can't afford one, the government will provide you with one. It's like the welfare recipients I see. They're on welfare, but they all have IPhones. I don't have an IPhone. My family has to work for our money and it doesn't go that far. (Update for Christmas my brother in law gave me a refurbished IPhone and is paying part of the data package for me for a year.)


"...one cannot say that solutions cannot be the same where causes are different."

I suppose this is why the Marxists, Communists, Anarchists, and Muslims are all working together. They have the same end goal in sight: the destruction of the American way of life. I got news for you, Mr. Obama: when the Marxists, Anarchists and Muslims are done with you, do you think they'll still consider you useful? And to the Occupy Wall Street gang, do you know that when you don't get the utopia you thought you were going to get, and revolt, you'll be the first to go, too?

"If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."

I believe this sums up the regulations czar...nudge, nudge, push, push. If you've ever read The Road to Serfdom, he mentions (paraphrased) that all socialists become fascists when they realize the only way to get what they want is to MAKE everyone accept it.

"If the government should, however feel that individual ownership is the best policy to take in order to bring development, then it should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country and this should apply to everybody from the President to the ordinary man."

Well, except for applying to everyone, this is what Obama is trying to do with all the farm regulations. He now wants all farm equipment to be listed as commercial vehicles, and everyone who drives it must have a Commercial Driver's License. This will put a lot of farms out of business, and he can break that land up and give it to someone else. To my family members who own more than 10 acres of land, I hope you're listening.  I believe the accepted amount was 5 acres.  I wonder if everyone will still be chearleading him when they have to give up their land.

"...so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others."

Ahh, that's why he is against capitalism. It means everybody is not the same. That's because some will work their butts off to get better off, and some want to sit on their butts and collect unemployment for 2 years, or welfare.

"...taxation can be used as a means of forced saving."

As in the country saving money, not the people. It goes on...

"...there is no limit to taxation if benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay."

This is why he wants to tax the rich more.

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed. Assuming that development and the achievement of a high per capita income is a benefit to society as a whole I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of this revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid."

The ends justify the means? If you let President Obama tax the rich at high rates, he will keep lowering the top wage until it includes everyone who isn't already on welfare. And do you really think these power hungry people in Congress will use the money wisely?  Will it go into a fund like Social Security, where if there's a surplus, they just throw it in the general fund and use it how they want?

"Nationalization should not be looked at only in terms of profitability alone, but also, or even more, on the benefit to society that such services render and on its importance in terms of public interest. ... railways would not have been nationalized world-wide since it is the least profitable so that in all countries it is subsidized by government."

Can you say high-speed rail system? If no one uses it, let it fail. It's not a benefit to society to let our money go down the drain on something no one wants to use. But instead, let's tax other transportation more so that people will see it as a benefit. 

"There is a statement in the paper about encouraging tourism. It is surprising that the government thinks only about lodges but not about making it cheap so as to include those who are not so rich. At the present time, the cost of living is too high for tourists. The hotels charge exorbitant rates and there are no price controls so that only the very rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists....The government ought to do something about this."

He's encouraging the government to set the rates for hotels so the poor can come to his country. Obama hasn't done this yet....YET. But he took over the banks, he took over the car industry (except for Ford). He already claims America is among the richest nations, and we ought to spread our wealth to less fortunate people.

In closing, I guess you can't really blame President Obama for these views. He was taught them from childhood by a communist mother and a Muslim father/step-father. But these are NOT American ideals. Americans believe in working for what they get. At least they used to. I remember as a child, and even into my teen years, it was an embarrassment to be on Welfare or food stamps (back when they were actually stamps handed out and not an innocent looking debit card). They better be glad I'm not a cashier at a grocery store. I'd yell really loudly, "Oh, this is government subsistence!" Every time someone came through with one of those debit cards.