Quantcast

Obama’s THREE RADICAL REDISTRIBUTION Plans for 2nd Term

Jan Morgan
 

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Few people talk about it but, redistributing the wealth comes straight from chapter two of the Communist Manifesto. Yet, in spite of the fact that Obama’s history is overloaded with Communist influence and he promotes the concept of redistributing the wealth, liberals get so upset when Americans refer to Obama as a Communist.
Go figure.
Now, it has become abundantly clear, Obama has three radical redistribution plans in store for America during his second term. The Washington Examiner lays it out so even the most simple minded can’t misunderstand the plans.

According to The Examiner, “The passage of Obamacare did not mean the president’s liberal supporters would give up on their dream of a federal single-payer health care system. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, called Obamacare a “starter home,” and for liberals it is just a first step toward their goal.”

The other goal for the safety net is to radically remake the retirement system. Social Security would remain in place, but progressives are frustrated that 401(k) plans are used mostly by higher-income workers. So they want the government, in Konzcal’s words, to “provide a universal IRA with an automatic enrollment to all Americans, as well as shifting 401(k)s over to a public-private, defined-benefit plan.” Such a scheme would not only involve massive new federal spending, but would also create a vast new pool of previously private money under the government’s control.

That’s the safety net. The liberal “springboard” includes programs like universal taxpayer-paid preschool and guaranteed paid leave for all new mothers and fathers, to “make sure each person has the most opportunity possible.”

The third goal, the “escalator,” is perhaps the most radical. To address continuing income inequality, liberal thinkers propose sweeping redistributions plans. One is to increase the earned income tax credit so that it becomes a government wage subsidy for everyone who makes up to $80,000 a year.
“Another approach,” writes Konczal, “would create an unconditional basic income that rises with GDP growth. The proposal gives every legal resident a cash stipend, usually targeted around the poverty level. This income is universal, so everyone gets it regardless of their income or work status, and it is unconditional.”

READ THE FULL STORY AT THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The Washington Examiner

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • He is a commie and I have only one use for a commie.

    • CHinOhio

      A target dummy? I spent 2 1/2 years in Germany, and was fortunate to go on the other side of The Wall. Saw Russian soldiers up close, and they do NOT like us – they had blood in their eyes for us.

  • Chris

    It seems like America has changed so much in the last 10 years that I hardly even recognize it.The future is very scary for a working class person.I have a 9 year old son and I dont know what the future holds for him in this country anymore.

    • Jarheadclan

      yes you do, freedom.. fight for him! Be a man!

  • Bill Clinton thought the right thing for liberals to do was to get everyone into their own house, by laxing the rules on down payments, proof of income, etc. (Fannie Mae) back in the mid 90’s. This is what actually ushered in the financial crisis in 2008. It was the fault of Clinton, not Bush. Bush warned about the coming financial crisis 16 times and the Democrats turned a deaf ear to him. That in a nutshell is the truth, no matter how many times Obama blames Bush.

    • Esther

      Of course, Thanks Wayne, I had thoughts along similar vein as you describe. A realtor made first contact with me back in 1997 encouraging me to buy a house worth at least $250000 while I still attended grad school. He said “no one pays back their student loans.” I was stunned. Others I knew were doing that very thing. I did not accept. Later, during the crash I had immediate recall about housing and the inflated prices and what happened, I blamed the Clintons for setting the trap for Bush. The fiasco prepared for the emergence of Hillary on the presidential ballot, only Barack showed up and ruined her plans. But really I think the “brains” of the operation was our first “lady” whose husband was too “hard a dog to keep on the porch,” she famously said, and whose obsession in college had been Alinsky’s book: Rules for Radicals.

      I think the fallacy of Bush was not entirely his preoccupation with war in Iraq, but the coupling of his misplaced confidence in government people whom the Clintons (actually Hillary) had put in place already. Tenent for one in the realm of the war. Remember the WMD report? The operations, war and domestic housing, were doomed to fail and she knew it and its realization delighted Bill. He had been put on trail for the blue dress. The couple put one over on Bush in a sense and so I believe that the charade of their being friends is merely a case of keeping you enemies closer.

  • Mike

    I agree with you assessment Jan.

    From Chapter Two, page 67 of the Communist Manifesto:

    “The proletariat (working class) will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie (ruling class/business owners/capitalists), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class: and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.”

    It goes on to say in the following paragraph:

    “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by the means of DESPOTIC inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production: by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.”

    The chapter goes on further to show what I’ll call, 10 Tenants:

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

    4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State.

    6. Centralization of the means of communication/transport in the hands of the State.

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production by the state; the bringing into cultivation of all waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies; especially for agriculture.

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of the populace over the country.

    10. Free education for all children in public schools.

    I think it’s pretty clear where the present administrative head of government is going…

  • What will the socialists do when they run out of OPM (Other People’s Money)???