NY Post publishes Obama's socialist plans, then mistakes him for Robin Hood???

Little-Acorn

New member
Yesterday Barack Obama told a hardworking citizen at a rally, that his reason for raising taxes on him, was to give their money to others. Such a plan is the basic root of socialism, as this article correctly points out.

But then the NY Post does a 180 and says Obama is trying to be come a "Robin Hood". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Obama's plan, as he described it, was to have government take money from the people who earned it.

But according to all the legends, Robin Hood did the exact opposite: He took money from GOVERNMENT TAX COLLECTORS and Treasury agents, and gave it BACK to the people who had earned it.

Conservatives know who Robin Hood was. Robin Hood was a friend of conservatives. Sen. Obama, you're no Robin Hood.

On the contrary, Obama and his ilk, are the political descendents of Robin Hood's main targets: Wealthy, coercive, overreaching, confiscatory Big Government agents.

--------------------------------------

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152008/news/politics/obama_fires_a_robin_hood_warning_shot_133685.htm

OBAMA FIRES A 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT

by CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

IT'S A LEAK! Barack Obama tells Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher he intends to "spread the wealth around."

Last updated: 10:19 am
October 15, 2008
Posted: 3:37 am
October 15, 2008

WASHINGTON - You won't find it in his campaign ads, but Barack Obama let slip his plans to become a modern-day Robin Hood in the White House, confiscating money from the rich to give to the poor.

Conservatives yesterday ripped Obama after he was caught on video telling an Ohio plumber that he intends to take the profits of small-business owners and "spread the wealth around" to those with lesser incomes.

The fracas over Obama's tax plan broke out Sunday outside Toledo when Joe Wurzelbacher approached the candidate.

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: "I've worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I'm buying this company and I'm going to continue working that way. I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama told him. "I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Critics said Obama let the cat out of the bag.

"It's clear that his main goal is redistribution of wealth, not growth," said Andy Roth with the anti-tax group Club for Growth. "He's perfectly happy to destroy wealth as long as he can redistribute it."

Obama has been meticulous, Roth said, to conceal the "socialistic" nature of his tax plans. "But every once in a while, he lets it slip," he said.

Republican candidate John McCain yesterday charged that Obama's comment was telling.

"This explains how Senator Obama can promise an income-tax cut for millions who aren't even paying income taxes right now," he said in Pennsylvania.

"My plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can 'spread the wealth around.' My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans."
 
"Yesterday Barack Obama told a hardworking citizen at a rally, that his reason for raising taxes on him, was to give their money to others. "

No, he didn't.
 
I've heard that from several people the last 2 days.....not one of them makes over $250,000, not even $100,000.
I'm sure Obama knows the plumber does not make over that.
If Dems really stuck to their line they always use of only the rich paying taxes, why has the middle class seen countless tax increases from them over the last few decades?

I remember back in 2004 a good article estimated Kerry would have raised about $40 billion by repealing Bush's tax cut on the richest Americans where it went down from 39% to 36%.
Obama is basically reviving the same plan.
We have a massive deficit of anywhere from $400 to $800 billion this year depending on if you want to use the government's accounting tricks then tack on the one bailout of $700 billion PLUS any other bailout(S).
And we haven't even got into his mammoth spending plans with the biggest in universal healthcare for the other 200 million Americans costing probably around $1.2 TRILLION per year, then free collegecare, he wants to increase the military by 100,000 soldiers, etc...

Yeah I'm sure his $40 billion tax increase on the rich and ending a $100 billion a year war in Iraq (assuming he ends it, most of the time I just hear he will do a "calculated" withdrawal whatever that means and doesn't invade nuclear Pakistan) will pay for all that.
 
Yesterday Barack Obama told a hardworking citizen at a rally, that his reason for raising taxes on him, was to give their money to others. Such a plan is the basic root of socialism, as this article correctly points out.

Actually, nationalizing industry is the basic root of socialism, and you Republicans are miles ahead of us there.
 
I've heard that from several people the last 2 days.....not one of them makes over $250,000, not even $100,000.

Several people who weren't going to vote for him anyway.

No one cares about your vote fascist "conservative democrat", because we all know who it's not going to anyway.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure Obama knows the plumber does not make over that.
If Dems really stuck to their line they always use of only the rich paying taxes, why has the middle class seen countless tax increases from them over the last few decades?

I remember back in 2004 a good article estimated Kerry would have raised about $40 billion by repealing Bush's tax cut on the richest Americans where it went down from 39% to 36%.
Obama is basically reviving the same plan.
We have a massive deficit of anywhere from $400 to $800 billion this year depending on if you want to use the government's accounting tricks then tack on the one bailout of $700 billion PLUS any other bailout(S).
And we haven't even got into his mammoth spending plans with the biggest in universal healthcare for the other 200 million Americans costing probably around $1.2 TRILLION per year, then free collegecare, he wants to increase the military by 100,000 soldiers, etc...

Yeah I'm sure his $40 billion tax increase on the rich and ending a $100 billion a year war in Iraq (assuming he ends it, most of the time I just hear he will do a "calculated" withdrawal whatever that means and doesn't invade nuclear Pakistan) will pay for all that.



What's your point?
 
Actually, nationalizing industry is the basic root of socialism, and you Republicans are miles ahead of us there.
Wrong, Obama and more Dems than Repubs are on board with that plan.

Who took advantage of Sep 11 to push to nationalize airport security?
The Democrat majority senate:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1199
And predictably like any branch of government they were incompetent and unaccountable, while being good PC government people and not profiling who they should search.

Who resists privatization of Amtrak and the post? Who votes against vouchers?

Liberal Democrats protect and try and get away with any nationalization they can. Their record shows it.
 
Wrong, Obama and more Dems than Repubs are on board with that plan.

Who took advantage of Sep 11 to push to nationalize airport security?
The Democrat majority senate:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1199
And predictably like any branch of government they were incompetent and unaccountable, while being good PC government people and not profiling who they should search.

Who resists privatization of Amtrak and the post? Who votes against vouchers?

Liberal Democrats protect and try and get away with any nationalization they can. Their record shows it.


That's interesting. Resisting privatization is the same as nationalization? So I suppose the Pentagon is a regular hot-bed of socialists, huh? I mean, I'll be they're really really resistant to privatization over there.
 
How many poor people pay taxes, btw? The upper 50% of Americans pay 80% of federal taxes. You want to help poor people, then lower state taxes.

Oh the poor, poor, poor, rich. I weep every night for them. Nevermind the fact that they just make so goddamn much that if they paid 1% of the taxes they would probably give more than the lower classes. And there taxes have been cut in half since the 80's. No other group has seen any real tax cuts at all.
 
Last edited:
That his plan to pay for his spending plans is well short and would not be done just by tax increases on the rich. There would need to be tax increases on the middle class.


Hmmm . . . interesting theory. I suppose Bush's ridiculous spending brought about the same thing? Reagan's?

What is most striking is that any independent analysis shows that McCain's spending plans will bring about more deficit spending than Obama's by a factor or 2 or three. So I guess McCain would have to really increase taxes on the middle class.
 
Oh the poor, poor, poor, rich. I weep every night for them. Nevermind the fact that they just make so goddamn much that if they paid 1% of the taxes they would probably give more than the lower classes. And there taxes have been cut in half since the 80's. No other group has seen any real tax cuts at all.
After Reagan cut their taxes we had a big boom in the 80's.

And other groups have seen tax cuts.
 
After Reagan cut their taxes we had a big boom in the 80's.

And other groups have seen tax cuts.

We also had a humongous boom in the 50's when their taxes were raised to 90%.

Sure, the amount of money coming out of that bracket increased from 1980-1990. But it increased a hell of a lot loss than from 1970-1980. The fact is that they didn't barely keep up with inflation.
 
Back
Top