Roger Kimball, on Barack Obama’s politics of envy and “fairness.”
[Update a while later]
Like father, like son:
How high should the tax rates be? “Theoretically,” he wrote, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” Yes, you read it: a 100% tax rate is fine. Obama Sr. continued, ” It is a fallacy to say there is a limit (to tax rates), and it is a fallacy to rely mainly on individual free enterprise to get the savings.” Free enterprise — bad. (He was discussing future government economic development.)
This is one of the things that I find most disturbing about Obama. He doesn’t believe that tax policy should be based on revenue. He thinks it should be based on “fairness.” As he said in that debate, he’s fine with less revenue as long as he can punish success.
A point Schiffren misses — which is a shame, since it would really drive home her thesis — is what happened in East Africa after Obama’s father and his intellectual colleagues got done imposing Afrosocialism on the post-colonial landscape.
The short answer is illustrated by Robert Mugabe and Daniel Arap Moi, and captured in the disheartening statistics fifty years later: the unemployment rate in Kenya is still 40%, the GDP per capita is still a mere 5% of First World standards, the infrastructure is still awful, the life expectancy is 56 years, probably about the same as it was in 1900, and the country is still massively dependent on the foreign-aid teat.
So what did Obama’s father’s dumbass ideas do for his own country? You’d think sons would learn from the mistakes of their fathers.
So what did Obama’s father’s dumbass ideas do for his own country? You’d think sons would learn from the mistakes of their fathers.
Perhaps Obama did learn from his father. You automatically assume that the consequences you describe are undesirable to everyone. Life has taught me that is not the case.
Recently I was having lunch with some acquaintances of the liberal persuasion. The topic of conversation turned to world population and the general consensus among these acquaintances was that it would be indeed desirable if a plague wiped out 90% of the world population. The tacit assumption of course being that the 3rd world would be hardest hit. Kind of dumbfounding when you think about it.
Recently I was having lunch with some acquaintances of the liberal persuasion. The topic of conversation turned to world population and the general consensus among these acquaintances was that it would be indeed desirable if a plague wiped out 90% of the world population.
It probably goes without saying that these people believe they should be in the 10% that survive. Suppose their nightmare scenario did happen and the “right people” did survive. How long before they starved to death or died of disease? Somehow, I doubt many of them would be willing to work the fields to grow the food or get their hands dirty disposing of over 5 billion human bodies. How many of them know how to run power, water, or sewage plants? How many of them know how to actually DO anything worthwhile? Within a short time, their lives would likely resemble the cave men – nasty, brutish, and short.
“Punitive liberalism” is a nice term but lets Obama off too lightly. He is really a socialist and should be called one.
100% tax? Hmmm? If I produce anything the government will take it away. If I produce nothing, the government will still provide for me. I’m sure everyone else will work hard to provide for me.
Oh, thaaat’s why everyone will be forced to ‘volunteer’!!!
Rand, you should make it clearer that the father, Obama Sr wrote that excerpt.
How long before they starved to death or died of disease?
They’d probably be shot for being traitors to the Peoples’ Revolution (or whatever they call it these days).
Oh, thaaat’s why everyone will be forced to ‘volunteer’!!!
The wonderful thing about this idea, it anticipates its own disfunctionality.
Hmmmmm.
1. The failures in Africa are vastly compounded when you add in the hundreds of billions in foreign aid spent there.
2. I’ve had similar conversations with liberals. It’s the same mindset that allows them to virtually ignore terrorism. Somehow they’re always the ones who’ll be on top, never have to suffer and won’t be a victim.
When I pointed out a massive plague that wipes out 95% of humanity would be the complete destruction of civilization and thus reducing humanity to subsistence farming. His bright response? “We’ll still have tractors!”.
Uhhhh. Fuel? Seed? Fertilizer? Pesticides? Safe storage of food from rodents and pests?
And then I pointed out that he didn’t know how to farm at all. Another bright response “Why would I be a farmer??”.
sigh.
3. The one thing I actually like about Socialism or Communism. When these two ideologies get into power, it’s always their friends who go up against the wall first.
4. BTW you guys hear about Obama’s latest serious problem?
Turns out that Mr. Centrist trying to appeal to Evangelicals bitterly opposed a couple bills during his time in the Illinois state legislature. Evidently, and this is really sick, the more common form of abortion practiced in Illinois involved inducing labor, getting the infant born and then withholding medical care until the infant until the child died.
Yes that’s right.
I’d really not get into it further. It’s all over the blogs and the NRLC (National Right To Life) and CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network). Obama gave an interview to the CBN after Saddleback, they hit him with this the No Child Born Act and he kinda started calling everyone liars.
Obama gave an interview to the CBN after Saddleback, they hit him with this the No Child Born Act and he kinda started calling everyone liars.
Classic projection.