It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


MEN seeking to escape Obama’s 'economic slavery' Socialist Agenda

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:48 AM


While browsing ATS, I ran across an excellent post titled, “Very strange explanation for vehicles at Jacksonville Airfield”. The OP of that article is Misoir and that post was followed by Misoir’s signature:

"I'm a socialist, so that puts me totally outside any concept...the Canadians get it. But seriously, most people don't get it. The idea of capping people's income just scares people. 'Oh, you're taking money from the rich.' Ooh, what a horrifying thing. These people really need $200 million" ~ Lewis Black

The following article was written as a counter-point to Misoir’s signature. It is not meant to disparage or insult Misoir in any way, as everyone is entitled to their own political opinion.

June 11, 2011 SJR – The “real world” can be hard, demanding, and just plain unfair. The “real world” in the USA, is becoming more and more ‘socialistic’ everyday. How long will it take, before the USA contracts all the economic ills currently effecting many European socialist nations?

In a very real sense, the average ‘private sector’ employee in the USA is being used as an economic slave to fund Obama’s ever expanding socialist agenda. The hidden tax code changes in Obama-Care, and other recent legislation, are likely to kill off tens of thousands of small business and destroy hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs in 2011/2012.

The problem with [Obama’s] socialism isn’t capping the income of someone who earns 500 times the median income. The problem with socialism is that politically connected "groups" contribute less and less, while getting paid by a government who takes more and more from everyone else.

HOW BAD IS IT? The average federal and state government workers earns twice that of a similar position in the private sector. And, the average government worker does less than half the work required of a similar position in the private sector. Also, the ranks of non-workers on the government dole (including government retirees) grows and grows until sooner or later the non-politically connected "give-up" and stop producing. This in fact is happening right now all over the USA, as men are growing tired of the treadmill and seeking to down-shift their lifestyles. The incentives to work-hard in the private sector have been stripped away, and the MEN are finding ways to escape the economic slavery being forced on them by "Obama's socialist agenda".

Communism in the old USSR failed, primarily because the average worker lost all “fair” incentive to produce.

Obama’s Socialism in many ways mirrors the old Soviet ‘failed’ communistic model. It’s time to impeach this Kenyan from office and flush his ‘failing economic policies’ down the toilet, before he flushes our nation completely down the river.

Most socialists enjoy a higher standard of living than they deserve, because ‘government socialist policies’ steal money and wealth from everyone else to “re-distribute” it to such socialists.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Gold_Bug]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:09 AM
Yes because Obama is such an evil socialist! Ohhh see the socalism just oozing from every orifice of his being!

Isn't this old news now?

Sorry to clue you in, but Obama isn't a socialist, he is an Oligarch. He is doing everything for major corporations, not the little guy.

But, if it helps you sleep better at night Obama can be your anti-Christ bogyman if you want him to be.

[edit on 6/11/2010 by whatukno]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:35 AM
I am not impressed at all with this article or your post. Clearly you present zero evidence that Obama is a socialist.

I think I speak for most Americans that Bush created this mess.

Bush even created the oil mess by his deregulation.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:16 AM
Alright so let's attack my signature, that's find I don't care. But when you take that and then say that I am ideologically in line with Obama and he is a Socialist, I draw a line the size of the grand canyon.

Obama is not a Socialist, on his best day he is a Social liberal, and on an ordinary day he is a Liberal corporatist. If anyone should know whether or not Obama is a Socialist would be me, with politics being of special interest to me and since I am currently in college for Philosophy and Political Science.

Most of today's European 'Socialists' are no longer socialists. They have abandoned even the most right-wing verson of Socialism, Social democracy, in favor of Social Corporatism and Neoliberalism. The only torch bearers of the original Social Democratic and Democratic Socialist movement are the far-left parties in Europe.

Examples: Socialist Party(Netherlands), Die Linke(Germany), Socialist Party(France), Socialist People's Party(Denmark), Left Party(Sweden), New Democratic Party(Canada).

Let's just use one of those parties platforms for example/comparison.

New Democratic Party

New Democrats today advocate, among other things

Gender equality and equal rights for gays, lesbians, and minorities

Improve environmental protection

National water safety standards

Increasing corporate taxes

Reducing poverty in Canada

Human rights protection

Expanded public transport

Expanded public health care including dental and prescription drug coverage

Social assistance policies that reflects citizens' needs and assist their re-entry to the work force

Abolishing the Senate of Canada and ensuring more proportional representation

Workers' rights including raising the minimum wage to at least keep up with the cost of living

Aboriginal treaty, land, and constitutional rights

A foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy, peacekeeping and humanitarian aid instead of offensive military action

Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

One wing is focused on ending the Canadian War on Drugs and legalizing recreational drugs

And here is Obama's platform. In the context it would seem he would look like the NDP platform, but if you were to put the NDP in America they would be way further left then Obama could imagine.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:44 AM
An income cap isn't necessary.

What is really needed is a reformation of the fundamental components of how the financial industry operates. Not more regulations, not more laws... just a change in one very simple concept: compound interest.

If banking becomes a public utility, then credit can be created of, by, and for the people, and provided simply if you can maintain a reasonable credit rating. No more control by the banks, determining which things get funded and which don't, even if it's against the people's wishes. No more denying projects funding because they might serve to diminish the power of the partnership between governments and banks.

If you make a bank account "leak" money... say 1% per year into a fund that finances the operation of the banks, then you prevent hoarding of money, and get it moving, which stimulates the economy. It would be like a reverse interest rate.

This has been tried historically, and contrary to the fear many people might have of a system so "backwards" it actually had tremendous effect creating social harmony, equality, opportunity, and wealth.

The "rich get richer" wouldn't be automatic anymore, unlike today. Today, you have people who, because of their financial power, get richer simply because they have money. And those who don't get that money loaned to them at interest, putting them on a hamster wheel trying to pay off a debt when the compound interest machine keeps rolling forever.

It's been calculated that in 400 years of banking, the banking and finance industry has burdened the working classes with over $1 quadrillion in money that was paid on debts for money created by the banking system, with another $1 quadrillion still owed.

This insanity is the result of compound interest, which is a component of our economy that doesn't have to exist at all. The only reason that it does exist is because the people who designed this system profit from it enormously, and don't want to see it run any other way.

"Compound interest is a tax on the poor, and a subsidy for the rich."

"As we have already shown, every dollar that exists today, either in the form of currency, checkbook money, or even credit card money – in other words, our entire money supply – exists only because it was borrowed by someone; perhaps not you, but someone.

That means all the American dollars in the entire world are earning daily and compounding interest for the banks which created them. A portion of every business venture, every investment, every profit, every transaction which involves money – and that even includes losses and the payment of taxes – a portion of all that is earmarked as payment to a bank.

And what did the banks do to earn this perpetually flowing river of wealth? Did they lend out their own capital obtained through investment of stockholders? Did they lend out the hard-earned savings of their depositors? No, neither of these were their major source of income. They simply waved the magic wand called fiat money."

- G. Edward Griffin

Socialism, communism, and even capitalism are all attempts to assuage the dissent that the masses offer against a system that they know is inimical to their interests. Everyone can feel that something is wrong... When you work harder each year than the last, but your money doesn't go as far. When you see that every time you turn around, there is a heavier financial burden being placed on you, and the apetite of the government and the banks goes unchecked, until the parasite that these institutions are becomes so large that it thretens to kill the host.

When this kind of social desperation becomes entrenched, societies break down and force a restructure, often through violence.

What we want to do is to avoid all that nonsense by establishing a system that works inherently to benefit those who work, those who innovate, and those who create, while also giving no incentive for parasitic behavior or creating a class of people who manipulate, control, or saddle other classes with imaginary debts used to support their lifestyle of power and control.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by 30_seconds]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:10 AM
If you honestly believe that the rich and talented few would actually survive a true meritocracy, then you have no idea what human beings are capable of when they see no incentive to work and play nice with others. The ugly truth is that social safety nets are there to protect the haves, not the have-nots. The haves are a lot more vulnerable to the have-nots than they'll ever want to discover, and our free-lunch society is the only workable solution to the fact that not everyone has talent or business savvy.

If you were to get that free-range Capitalism that you wetdream about, you'd go broke on personal security costs to keep those lazy, ignorant losers from ripping you and your family to shreds and taking what you earned through hard work and talent. This is how it goes in a banana-republic, which is what free-range Capitalism ends up looking like in real-life application. Eventually, all services (including personal security) become commodities and the most brutal people become the richest and most powerful people.

Some of you folks are so devoted to tax breaks and keeping the nickels that you fight over, that you forget how much it would actually cost you if you go all your dreams to come true. I know that I'd be living like a king if you got your wish. Hell, it'd only take me an afternoon to gobble up 20 or 30 people's lives and everything they own if it was really a case where there was no reason not to gobble them up. The only thing keeping a guy like me from putting a nice little slaughter squad together with economic losers is that they know they won't starve if they just keep cool and look to the government for the basics. if I were you, I'd kiss the Welfare Dept's *ss.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by NorEaster]

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:22 AM
I think the basis for this confusion is what is socialism vs what is fascism?
When the President and Congress act in the interests of the corporations then that is fascism. What little bones they throw the poor is simply to help maintain their voter base who think that this government is better for them than another.
Socialism comes in many forms, some democratic, some communistic. In it's best form socialism is more like a tribal society in that everyone (young, old, sick, disabled etc) are looked after and cared for by those who are able. This isn't a "handout" society, it's a humane society.
What Obama and pals are doing is trying to make it look like they give a damn about the poor and weak. In truth they don't but they have to do have some good PR so we don't see them for the monsters they actually are.
Every rich family has some Philanthropic foundation for the same reasons, to keep the masses from rising up and taking all back that has been stolen from them during their lifetimes.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 08:26 AM
reply to post by 30_seconds

A truly great reply 30_seconds!

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:04 AM
reply to post by Gold_Bug

i wonder if the writer of the article realizes that unemployment was already ON THE RISE before Obama took office?

Yes, he didn't stop it from CONTINUING to rise

much in the same way that citizens from Indonesia didn't form a giant human wall to stop the tsunami from devastating their country.

There are somethings that, once set in motion, just can't be stopped.

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 09:30 AM
"but Obama isn't a socialist, he is an Oligarch"

Every time I come onto ATS I dread the moment where I read something so inane that my head begins to throb and I consider leaving to the countryside for a week or three.

Of course Obama is a socialist. This is not even a legitimate question to debate in a serious manner; only for the purpose of obfuscation or ignorance. He is a textbook socialist in rhetoric, substance, personnel and policy.

Being an oligarch and a socialist aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, they're almost exclusive to one another. Oligarchs seek to concentrate their wealth and power and the quickest means of doing so is...socialism. This is why the Rockefellers, Gates, Buffets, et. al. of the world favor socialist policies, albeit in a rhetorically subdued manner. The government expands its control of portions of the economy and the Oligarchs expand in parallel. This is also referred to as rent-seeking. This is precisely what cap and trade is. Ditto healthcare.

With regards to the OP, I suppose you are trying to say the US population is in the process of going Galt without using "Rand" or "Galt" so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the Rand-haters. I think you are partially correct. Many portions of the middle class are laden with families, debt, obligations etc that they will not in good conscience walk away from. So they continue slaving on for FRNs and probably will until the bitter end (of the economy or life).

I am personally trying to work as much as possible to scoop up as many FRNs as I can so I can get a nice stash of PMs before the MSM officially begins using the term "double-dib."

top topics


log in