One of Obama's Tax Proposals

[Aggrad02]

Today I heard a part of an Obama commercial on the radio today. In the part that I heard Obama said that "Tax cuts should not be given to companies that move their operations overseas".

Then later today I was reading F.A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, and he had this to say about collectivism:

"They [socialist] all regard the capital as not belonging to humanity but to the nation..." pg. 166

And it made me think about Obama's commercial. First I don't think there are any tax cuts that go just to companies which base their operations overseas, so what Obama is really saying is that he is going to raise taxes for companies that move their operations (i.e capital) overseas. Why would you do such a thing? Why base a tax policy on where a company is located in comparison to where they used to be located. Then I read Hayek's paragraph. The socialist like Obama believe that neither the companies production nor its capital belong to those that own it, but to the nation in general, and that by moving it overseas, they need to be taxed (i.e destroyed) in retaliation to punish it for taking away capital from society.

It really made me sick.

I also came across this quote by Upton Sinclair (I had watched There Will be Blood based on Sinclair's Oil and wanted to know more about him):

Of his gubernatorial bids, Sinclair remarked in 1951: "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the Big Lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."

And that is exactly what Obama is doing, outflanking the conservatives, libertarians and individualist.

[Selene]

My friend: aggh sound like John McCain!

One of the major issues that I have had for 40 years with "conservatives" and any extension of the concept - liertarian conservatives, evangelical conservatives, moderate conservatives [now there is a linguistic limbo dance] is ceding the primary issue that all forced taxation is theft by the state to advance a specific re-allocation of resources by force rather than reason.

WW II was primarily funded by bonds;

We also had, gee what a concept, a Constitutional declaration of War by the Congress, something that we have neglected to do in 4 or 5 conflicts since

WWII [depends on whether you count our present conflict as two wars or one war].

My major global strategic argument against the current conflict is that we did not declare war. Same poblem that I had with Korea, Vietnam and Gulf war I.

As principled individualists, we should never cede that premise.

Adam

[Aggrad02]

My friend: aggh sound like John McCain!

One of the major issues that I have had for 40 years with "conservatives" and any extension of the concept - liertarian conservatives, evangelical conservatives, moderate conservatives [now there is a linguistic limbo dance] is ceding the primary issue that all forced taxation is theft by the state to advance a specific re-allocation of resources by force rather than reason.

Adam

Can you be a little clearer please? If you say that forced taxation is immoral, then I agree with you 110%. If not please let me know what you are trying to say.

And the purpose of the original post was not to discuss taxes per se, but to point out the psychology of the socialist, and to extreme degree that Obama is a socialist, and how he considers capital as collectively owned, instead of privately owned.

And I agree with you 100% percent, the current war is unconstitutional because the congress did not declare it.

--Dustan

[Selene]

Thanks:

Yes, Obama is a socialist in the communist progressive tradition. Sorry to be obtuse.

You are 100% correct.

Adam

[tjohnson]

I think drawing conclusions about what a candidate's true feelings are based on statements he/she makes to the media during an election campaign is very risky. In my experience politicians will say almost anything to get elected and even then, it's their speech writers making most of the statements.

[mvir9]

I think drawing conclusions about what a candidate's true feelings are based on statements he/she makes to the media during an election campaign is very risky. In my experience politicians will say almost anything to get elected and even then, it's their speech writers making most of the statements.

I live in Illinois, and I can attest to the extreme leftist nature of Obama's policies and programs. I agree that a person shouldn't take a politician's campaign propaganda at face value, at least not before researching the candidate. It is easy enough to find out what the candidates have and have not supported (in actuality) in the past.