2008 Re: WBEZ, Soros, Obama, & How Redistribution Fails

A little notation I made to the WBEZ radio site where Barack Obama says the court didn't do enough http://www.wbez.org/jandrews/2008/10/barack-obamas-radio-days-2/7912. I edited in some commas, and Obama's name when it would aid in clarity (I've written a lot since then that hopefully helps), things I tend to miss/overlook when editing in a tiny comment window.

The 12,000 businesses needing $250,000 each to expand versus,

4 million people in the entire nation getting $750 each (single under 200k get 500 bucks, families under 250k get 1000 bucks, I averaged)

Nationally 40% of the population doesn't pay income taxes due to threshold being raised per the Consumer Price Index.

Ask how much 750 or 1000 dollars a year will help you alone, granted this amount could be a significant help.

Then ask how much 3 billion dollars would do being lent to those 12,000 businesses across the country who are above the $250k revenue threshold Senator Obama has proposed, businesses that want to expand and add jobs, pay more of the same taxes they already pay, but, are having to recalculate the risk of expansion due to the contingency of higher taxes in the future.

In numbers of people 4 million seems like quite a bit, yet this ends up being an arbitrary cash infusion and not concentrated, based on not just what the recipients do with the funds but when -- essentially an economic stimulus package. The numbers I used above are what 3% of $100 billion dollars would accomplish when taken from one individual or class, and given to another.

If the billionaires this applies to had a choice and were required to spend this money they'd be deciding between making an investment they will do all they can to assure makes a profit, and contributing to a group who will likely spend it in a variety of ways that are least efficient in relation to their benefit to our economy.

In reality the wealthy pass the tax increase on to the consumer, they always have, and since the money was taken from them, they'll just get it back with an added profit by price increases. As much as people believe in the Obama proposal to take from the wealthy and give to others it is clear this support is due to personal whims and overall bias against the wealthy. This is a mistaken envy in light of capitalism being a system that anyone can become wealthy in.

This emotional [Obama] response appears to be irrespective of the benefits derived from investment use by the wealthy which benefits the economy by providing funds for expansion of business which, by competition, [helps in] keeping prices down. Of course the wealthy do not try to fool us into believing they will sit still as though in a vacuum -- They did not become as wealthy as they are sitting in a vacuum.

I submit that those of wealth who support Barack Obama do so because they will be able to play even greater financial games that benefit themselves more than anyone else, and maybe even at the expense of the American People -- their revenge on us for their losing elections based on our independent will.

600 million dollars is nothing to spend to win an election when the value of the handful of people at the table who surround Barack Obama is 500 billion dollars. And if you think Barack Obama hasn't made them some promises, and/or that these billionaires such as Warren Buffet and George Soros haven't placed their assets long ago outside the United States Government's reach, you are the exact fool that Obama and his wealthy politburo have counted on.

Understand that any sense of alarm by conservatives may not be due to what liberals believe it is because liberals are so certain a power shift is good, they may be surprised how many conservatives agree a power shift is good, but, not into the hands of a puppet of people who are so wealthy and longed for financial collapse to buy enough interest in businesses they could not afford before. Now the fact some of them have criminal backgrounds and defy other nation's governments, or [just] buy them, does not help sway those who care to trust Barack Obama or his judgment.

Please realize many conservatives are unhappy with George Bush and, due to the 2 party system, find themselves stuck not wanting to throw their vote away, but knowing they cannot vote for a man who can surround himself with the world's richest people because history has shown these people always surround those they can control. Some time look up Brown Brothers Harriman where you'll find Bush Senior, Ford Motor company and a host of others were a funding mechanism of the NAZI war machine, here are internet references to it http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bushnazidealingscontinueduntil1951.htm I am sorry I do not have my copy of the report that I went to the Library of Congress to get and make a copy of available to me right now.

The point is that these men of Wealth and Power were more than happy to fund the NAZI party, for racial reasons, which is another way of saying "dominant political power." Adolf Hitler could have won the war if not for the resources of the world applied against he and these men. But that was at a time that we recognized unity as Americans, something we don't have anymore and why a similar "cabal" surround and feed Barack Obama's ambition to likely get away with whatever they intend irrespective of Barack Obama's idealism.

For all the hype that liberals have against the wealthy, they appear to remain blind to wealthy liberals who often became wealthy off the backs of a nation's people. George Soros in particular made over 1.1 billion dollars in virtually 1 day when breaking the bank of England, and it is estimated that this profit is around 24 British pounds taken from each member of the entire population of England and was the cause of tax increases.

If you think for one moment Soros' support for Barack Obama, his organization of the Democratic Alliance, and consistent interest in buying elections ($15 million he spent alone on John Kerry hoping to win in 2004) is in your best interest, you clearly are only as informed as Barack Obama wants you to be.

I know that when you combine that kind of man (George Soros) with Mayor Daley and his political union machine to then add in Warren Buffet who understands these things but must maintain his $130,000 a share Berkshire Hathaway, which is dependent on Institutional Investors (unions) and others like George Soros, you certainly will have a winning team, but, not due to the best interests of the American people.

But of course, my lack of education as a conservative because I state the well documented truth about George Soros, convicted of inside trading in France, who defies even their Supreme Court -- his conviction upheld in every French Court -- and wants to take his issue up to the International Courts, means I am acting on hype. If you happen to actually look into Mr. Soros you'll also find his discussion of how he manipulated the Thai Bhat but presents a plausible explanation, irrespective of proof to the contrary. Additionally, if you can take off your "environment over the life of humans" bullydom glasses, please look into Rosia Montana in Romania. You'll run across a letter where George Soros tells this poor village of a gold mine, that George Soros single-handedly ended the development of, knowing full well the village would own 20% of the mine, where Mr. Soros informs these people, "the berries and mushrooms you pick to eat, sell those, as they will be worth more than the gold in that mine ever will be to you." Of course the mine was closed on claims by George Soros "Open Society Institute" of mining techniques that hurt the environment, and, his support for this was a CEO of the mining company that has a previous criminal conviction -- talk about guilt by association!

But these are the benefits of Soros being the man who was able to co-sign for 20 million dollars of funding from the World Bank to Romania after donating 125 million to their government -- Yes trust the choice George Soros supports, brilliant!

Understand too, that for all the claims about lobbyists in McCain’s camp, in 26 years Senator McCain took only $20,000 from FreddieMac and FannieMae. Senator Obama in less than 2 years time had taken $111,000 from them, lobby money that they received from us as a government-funded private institution. Also Senator McCain has taken absolutely no earmarks, though they account for a small portion of the budget, they do remain a politician using money that doesn't need to be paid back to the government to wield political influence in exchange for favors. Senator Obama's earmarks that he listed himself during the primary of $740 milion [sic] dollars is quite a bit of influence at our expense for one candidate, 3 times more than the "bridge to nowhere" and a much broader influence in Illinois due to population density than Alaska.

Understand this list of things I have brought up above is not exhaustive.

If you cannot see how actions speak louder than words I am sorry, but when I look at all of these things taken together it appears those supporting Obama do not realize who the people are behind the curtain controlling their Wizard of Oz.

Thanks for reading,

Toto (the curtain puller, at least in spirit).

P.S. I would have cited links but knowing that you'll only knee-jerk to rebut with an argument in misdirection or re-direction anyway, I felt omission is warranted. Yet I felt it important to you liberals who hate conservatives solely for being conservative that I include the link regarding Bush Senior, so you get a better idea that my voice speaking out is in the interest of what's best for my country and not for me alone. I just wish you guys would do your research, would look for the truth, instead of looking for what appeals to your personal self-interest, then I believe our differences in philosophy wouldn't matter because we'd both know when danger to our nation is in front of us and stand together to defend America. However, if this KGB agent is telling the truth, there is likely nothing that can be done [UPDATE: New Link follows, erased original] http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x32cxf_yuri-bezmenov

In the comment thread, there's a brief exchange with a “Brian” that I found interesting, his post, at the time, he presumed a rebuttal. You be the judge in light of what we know about Obama, if he is abiding by the tenor of the cited statement or merely showing the dictatorial power of the Presidency to right what Obama admittedly shows by his words he believes is a wrong:

'One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, that's a wealth issue and something and we can't get into.' -- Emphasis mine, http://www.wbez.org/jandrews/2008/10/barack-obamas-radio-days-2/7912.

As you can see from what President Obama has chosen to focus on with stimulus money and seeking more stimulus to protect classes of jobs that all feature being under the “union label,” and particularly teachers' jobs, his view is to use the Presidency to bypass Brian's rebuttal point, where Obama noted this “major issue...being “redistribution.” Thus, again, what appeared at the time a rebuttal has proven otherwise by the actual working record of Barack Hussein Obama. And, in truth, Obama's statement suggests that the redistribution issue was created by a judgment on behalf of the issue of racism, as though the court had a duty to bind these together. I haven't looked up the case cited, however, if the Court actually said what Barack Obama claims in the WBEZ interview, then, I'd dare say, he's given us a case citation to put an end to social spending as the medium of redistribution, and a nail in the coffin of this abusive government practice for purposes of government financial gain through artificially induced (community organizer agitated) fictional societal controversies – a series of contrived logics derived from facts of no consequence, except under the idea of finding a question that plays on others and the hardships of living one’s own life responsibly, a question brought in a manner that results in jealousy and resentment to play upon an individual's inner fear. This is in like manner to the breaking of a soldier, however, much more expedient, as it leverages the person's life choices against their own internal resentments and self-doubt.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item