Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Welcome to the United Socialists States of America.”

by Brandon Brice

Caution should be in place for all those who are making reservations for the Obama inaugural. Those of us who still believe in some resemblance of a Democratic Republic based on capitalistic principles that says hard work should be awarded rather than the increasing socialism offered in the Obama plan, remember as the old folks use to say, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is.

The fallacy of throwing our eggs in one basket is a lesson African Americans still seem to not heed. If politicians have the endorsement of every prominent person in America, people forget the voters haven’t spoken yet and I thought we lived in a Democracy. What one tells a poll taker and what one votes for may be two different things as Governor L. Douglas Wilder learned in Virginia. What minorities may not appreciate is that if every black person voted for Obama that is likely still less than 12% of the population and probable voter pool.

People are bantering about the riot which will ensue if Obama doesn’t win or the resignation of defeat which will keep folks from ever wanting to try it again. The media’s unwillingness to adequately vet candidates has allowed us to have running for the highest office in the land those about whom many valid questions exists. The smearing and threats to those who dare ask questions is reminiscent of Gestapo tactics as is the devotion to Das Fuhrer. The Fairness Doctrine has been bantered about and used for each side’s purpose with so much noise pollution it is deafening.

That some would dare impugn the mind of a man who was imprisoned for five years on a mission for his country simply because he didn’t finish first in his class (though the last graduate of a medical school is still called doctor) is as reprehensible as not voting for someone simply because he is black (one drop is all it takes per the constitution’s original founders).

When the final votes are counted and the Electoral College findings confirmed we will have a new leader. Hopefully both sides will grow up and reach across the table to unite this great country joining together appreciating as we are so fond of saying, “G-d Bless America” and all that dwell within her as well as those without. We understand from history that bigger government is not the answer, but in many respects the ultimate problem. Socialism has been tested throughout history and has failed, so I ask the American people why are we returning to this system?

~Brandon Brice is a Harlem, NY resident and contributor to HipHopRepublican.com for years this Howard University' graduate was Chairman of that campus' Republican Chapter. Mr. Brice also holds an Economics degree from Rutgers University, was a former Eagleton Institute of Politics Fellow in the state of New Jersey , as well as a fellow in the New Jersey State Assembly Minority Office in Trenton , NJ. Brice has worked as a Policy Assistant for the Honorable le Dennis Hastert during his US Congressional tenure as Speaker of the House. In addition, served as a fellow with the Under Secretary of Disarmament Affairs at the United Nations.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ok now I'm just frustrated.

You hold an economics degree. So you know... YOU KNOW... that this isn't socialism!

I feel like I'm living in bizarro world where it's ok for people to scream "muslim socialist" for no good reason.

And criticizing McCain for his academics has absolutely nothing to do with his Vietnam imprisonment. There is no correlation = your argument uses false logic. The last graduate of a medical school may be a doctor, but I sure as hell don't want him to be my doctor.

Gestapo tactics? You've got to be kidding me. Now you're tossing in fascism with the socialism. Please, decide why one you want. Wanna try out communism next? I think Michele Bachmann beat you to the bunch.

And I agree with your idea about two-party competition, but the buck stops there.

Folks love to talk about the Bradley effect but what about the freaking "Brooke" effect? The Attorney General turned Senator wasn't expected to win in MA in '62, '64, and especially not in '66 (so called white backlash)... and he killed it. White people across the board voted for him in droves. Why? When "polled" they said they could care less about his race, they cared that HE showed that he cared about THEM.

But back to minorities... "why are we returning to [socialism]." Um pause, when have black folks in the USA ever had REAL socialism?

A better question is, why has the GOP repeatedly FAILED to attract people of color. I urge you to check the Batman post above yours and stop bemoaning "black socialism."

Anonymous said...

Obama is Socialist bordering on communist. I don't care that he is Muslim it should never be an issue. He surrounds himself with socialist, Ayers, communist, Wright liberation theology (Nicaraguan communism), Frank Marshall Davis, a communist, Cousin Railla Odinga (communist in Kenya) lost election and caused riots. Is this guilt by association or association by like minded individuals? Socialism is wrong and doesn't work communism, is wrong and doesn't work Obama didn’t get the memo when the wall fell. SBM

Anonymous said...

i have a secret...the usa is both socialist and communist. here's why:

socialist - in the usa we have programs such as, medicare, medicaid, social security, the bailout plan, the economic stimulus package ($600 that we got this summer), teachers, police officers, firefighters, USDA, FDA, unemployment, food stamps, welfare, FCC, WIC, HUD

if only the usa would have given the slaves that 40 acres and a mule

communist - china (a communist country) is currently lending the usa money. if communist money is in our economy, what does that make us? does the red wash off somehow?

Bakes said...

Before my mind get tainted with the responses (some of which I'm sure I will agree with from cursory glance) let me just get my own thoughts down. It is shocking someone with a degree in economics will talk about encroaching socialism.

No wonder that Mr. Brice declines to substantiate the silly charge that this country is creeping up on Socialism, by putting his economics degree to use and explaining to us exactly how this is being done. Instead he conflates an economic policy (Socialism) with a political philosophy (Totalitarianism) to decry as he sees it, an intent to silence criticism.

He talks about "the fallacy of (African Americans) throwing all our eggs in one basket"... but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't this very site proof of exactly how fallacious that statement in of itself is? Are all African Americans throwing their eggs in one basket in this election? I must have missed something. Apparently it is inherently wrong for a majority of African Americans to support any one candidate or another... I wonder if whites should be held to the same ridiculous standard?

"If politicians have the endorsement of every prominent person in America, people forget the voters haven’t spoken yet and I thought we lived in a Democracy."

Someone please...help me. Exactly what is that gibberish supposed to mean? Coming even from the Obama camp are warnings that the Democrats not get too ahead of themselves and get too happy before Nov. 4th. So what's Brice's point here? Again... I must be missing something. Socialism I tell you.

There's more nonsensical handwringing about the media not vetting candidates, and valid questions being left unasked. Like?? The only candidate this could possibly refer to (other than Caribou Barbie/FemJethro of course) is Obama. What more questions should we be asking...really?

"Smearing and Gestapo tactics"?? Like what? Who's being smeared for asking questions of Obama? What Gestapo tactics... surely you don't mean railing against the "liberal elite media", lol

The coup de grace is the paean to McCain... and the lament that people "would dare impugn the mind of a man who was imprisoned for five years on a mission for his country simply because he didn’t finish first in his class". I'm sorry... but some have poked fun of McCain's class rank true... but "impugn his mind" come on, enough of the belly aching. Besides, what in the name of blazes does his military career and imprisonment have to do with his ability to be President? Does his capture mean that his intellect cannot be questioned? Need I even point out that it was his penchant reckless and erratic behavior that resulted in him being shot down in the first place? Hey.. his words, not mine (lest you should accuse me of "impugning" the mind of your hero). It is admirable that given an opportunity to come home McCain chose to do the right thing... admirable... not heroic. Given the overall tone of your whiny post however I guess I shouldn't really complain, the entire thing is fraught with hyperbole and sensationalism.

Paul Hue said...

Obama and his supporters favor socialist plans, such as a graduated ("progressive") tax structure, that forces the "haves" to pay for the "have nots." That is a socialistic plan. So is "universal" healthcare.

Are the people who would qualify for this new healthcare really doing the best that they can for themselves, such as refraining from production of children that they CANNOT AFFORD?

Well, my "baby mama" is putting an Obama sign out in my yard. I lack enough enthusiasm for McCain to go track down a sign for him. And I can't even admit to her that my absentee ballot already went out, with McCain checked, because she has already lashed me so harshly one day having to "answer to my three daughters" for not "participating in history".

I would point out to her that she's going to be ruining our daughters' future by skewing the tax code and poisoning the healthcare system. But at this point, she has entered that emotional state that liberals get, where they feel that they are "doing good" and thus opponents are "evil" and "racist/sellouts" (depending on how they racially categorize you).

I already got ex-communicated from a beloved FAMU alumni internet community because I dared push back against the Obama enthusiasm. I won't in the future attempt to express myself on these topics to these self-fancied "open minded" people.

Paul Hue said...

Bakes: If 97% of black folks vote for Obama, they are putting all of their eggs in one basket. That is also true in regular years when only 90% vote democratic.

On an issue like 1960s civil rights legislation, or 1860s emancipation, 100% agreement makes plain sense. But on issues like school vouchers, graduated/progressive vs. flat tax structure, socialized vs. free market healthcare, the facts certainly don't warrant 90% support against vouchers and for graduated tax rates and socialized medicine.

And socialism it indeed is. Using the government to "spread wealth around" is socialism. A valid argument would be to point out that the republicans do this as well, which is a sad shame. Such a shame, that I am embarrassed to vote for them. But I'm really over a barrel here, because the democrats will do this even worse.

Socialism might just make life easier for people who are not taking responsibility for their own lives and welfare and responsibilities. But it will certainly screw things up for the rest of us. Our society already has aspects of socialism in it, and they are among the primary causes of most of our biggest problems. K-12 education is one major example. All of us self-sufficient citizens pay taxes to pay for the K-12 education of every child in our communities, and even children in very distant communities. That is socialism.

And it has produced such bad schools in many districts that very few self-sufficient people -- including most of the teachers and politicians advocating against vouchers! -- turn down this "universal education" program and pay an additional amount for their own kids to attend private schools. In my case in the Detroit area, your taxes and mine collect together totaling $13k annually ready for my family's assigned "universal education" school. Well, I accepted this "hand out" for a few years, but it got so bad, I am now turning it down in favor of private school.

Why can the nearby catholic school for just $4,500 give my kid a much better education than the $13k "universal education"? What put me over the edge was my final meeting with my daughter's 7th grade councilor, after my daughter had received another suspension for her ghetto behavior running with her ghetto friends. I asked the councilor, "where do you send your kids?" When she said, "catholic school," that was the end for me. I plucked my kids from that shopping mall free-for-all "universal education" environment, with all the bad talking and fussing and fighting, and put her in with the nerds at catholic school.

What about the parents of my daughter's ghetto friends, who lack $4,500 to attend a non-ghetto private school? Too bad; they are stuck with the $13k "universal education" school. Guarantee: a preview of "universal healthcare."

You could call me a socialist, too, I suppose, because I advocate vouchers. That's also socialism, because we are all paying for everybody else's kids' K-12 education. But it's step down from complete socialism where our pooled tax dollars are spent only at a government operation.

Bianca said...

People on this site are borderline idiots(meaning writers. DO you guys even think bout your arguments. Obama is not a socialist and if you guys haven't notice we are already going that route with Bush the republican's republicans in office. By definition the word socialism means Wall Street. First we bail them out and then semi-nationalize the banks..Wake the hell up please...what you fear the most is already taken place, but since it's not a party in your favor I guess you guys don't take notice

Anonymous said...

paul hue your comment makes no sense. You say both the Democrats and the Republicans are Socialists and you're not a fan. So why not support a third party candidate if you're really principled?

Bakes said...

Paul,

I actually responded to your first comment... but 'somehow' it wasn't published, which is interesting in it's own self. But good thing, I get to kill two birds with one stone (assuming it passes muster this time around). I do find it rich however that you refer to the mother of your kids (not sure if she's your wife) as you 'baby mama' and your own daughter as being "ghetto".

At any rate, that's neither here nor there. It's a little late to start complaining about the progressive tax.. it's been operative in the US since 1860 when Lincoln instituted it to help fund the Civil War. I suppose by your measure Lincoln was a Socialist as well and taking money from the citzenry, everyone a little bit commiserate to their earnings was some unconscionable evil perpetrated on the masses.

Here's a quote to ponder:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Who is this famous incorrigible Socialist proposing the graduated (progressive) tax? Adam Smith. I'm sure you've heard of him. While you rail against the Socialism evil, ponder also the fact that every civilized society is built upon the pillar of individual sacrifices in the name of the greater good of the whole. 9th grade Civics to most of us... Socialism to your lot, I'm sure.

I also find your attitude towards those less fortunate than yourself alarmingly patronising and dismissive. To hear you tell it everyone who ever finds himself in need of governmental assistance must be an incorrigible slacker content to leech off the efforts of hard workers like you and I, right? Well I appreciate the favorable assumption, but I must respectfully decline to be counted among your lot. I know for sure that I wouldn't be where I am today were it not for the sacrifices of many who came before me (and I don't mean that in some ephemeral sense, I'm talking about real individuals I've met along the walks of my life) and who provided a helping hand here and there and to whom I owe and incredible debt of gratitude.

Extrapolated beyond the individual level I similarly see it the civic duty of those of us who have been blessed to reach back and help pull up some of our lesser brethrens and sistrens. Doesn't mean we have to keep throwing money at them indefinitely, but certainly not everyone can go to Catholic schools for the simple reason that there aren't enough Catholic schools to go around. Even if there were, we all can't be professionals. Society functions b/c there is labor to fill every employment need from the "lowest" and most menial (and scantly paying) jobs... to more prestigious and fiscally rewarding jobs. In short some people regardless of effort will be consigned by fate to work at lesser paying jobs, curbing their earning potential. Conceivably not everyone would be able to pay their own way for the education of their kids (as is your perfect-world suggestion). Should we thus relegate these kids to no schooling whatsoever? Or is it infinitely better for everyone to contribute proportionately to the education of our society (b/c that's who our kids are, our future society)? Are you seriously suggesting, by your denunciation of the progressive tax as Socialism, that some better system exists whereby each man fend for himself and we thus end up with a bifurcated society of "haves" and "have nots", "educated" and "uneducated"?

...and what's with this nonsense about "production of children that they CANNOT AFFORD?" what on earth does that have to do with universal healthcare?

Paul Hue said...

Bianca: I agree that both McCain and Obama -- and Bush for that matter -- propose socialist actions. However, Obama's combined proposals in that regard are much greater, and thus much more fearsome to people like me who believe consider that path the one to ruins.

Paul Hue said...

Bakes: Since I introduced some personal info, and you have pondered, I will share. I am from a "ghetto" environment myself, and like many of my fellows growing up, I have fathered three children out of wedlock... and by three different women. So my views come in addition to lots of scholarly research -- just like your views -- but intimate, lifelong familiarity up-close and in-person with these topics, which are not abstractions for me (not that they are for you).

My eldest daughter grew up without me, and has fallen into the familiar path, unwed parent sans any training, skill, or credential, an ex-con baby daddy awakening each day with few productive goals or concerns. My second child is now 14, raised 100% by me. In 7th grade she fell in with a ghetto crowd at her public Detroit-area school, and transformed from productive, self-respecting behavior to the opposite, with no white racists forcing her to throw away her eduction.

So I am a mixed bag, like perhaps all people, of poor choices (producing children out of wedlock) and good choices (graduating from HS, BS, MS; bankable university majors; paying my bills, watching credit, etc.). But I don't blame my mistakes on "society" or historical events. Nor do my children depend on anybody but me for their needs, including shelter, food, education, and healthcare.

As I ponder the futures of my three "black" progeny, I do not worry about if Obama or McCain is going to create enough government programs to "help" them, or take enough wealth from evil "rich people" to "spread around." First, I thank the lord that they were not born "black" in 1860 or 1960 USA, nor in 2000 Africa, Arabia, Cuba, or Venezuela. As citizens of 2008 USA, I consider their futures and their prosperity entirely in their own hands, a collective and cumulative product of their own life choices, some (most, I hope) good, and (inevitably) some bad.

I further believe that certain factors controlled by people like Obama and McCain can affect the details of how their life choices play out. A flat, simple tax structure combined with a minimum of government programs will maximize the rewards in store for their NET positive choices. And absolutely NOTHING that Obama can do will get my grandson's worthless, tatoo'd up manchild father off the couch each day. And every day that so-called man lays on that couch, he brings down all the collective data used to supposedly demonstrate a "gap" between "black and white" in the US.

Like you, I owe whatever success I enjoy to not only my own net smart choices and efforts, but also to the assistance provided to me by others... VOLUNTARILY. That is different than the government programs that you support.

I do concede to you that I do share with my hero Adam Smith room for some sort of taxation used for some forms of government programs. But certainly not in excess of the amount of tax revenue that can be generated, and certainly not at the expense contracting the economy.

On the point you make about another one of my heros, Lincoln: his taxation to raise, deploy, and support a federal army did not constitute welfare of any sort. Maintaining an army is one government role that I find valid, and those troops were performing functions vital to maintaining the very existence not only of the US as a nation, but freedom itself. I can hardly imagine a more just war ever fought, or any better government service ever performed (once the US government took up this fight) than the one waged by Nat Turner, Gabriel Prosser, Denmak Vessey, John Brown, and Abe Lincoln.

I am sure you have studied the lives of people like Prosser, Vessey, and Turner. They must get a belly laugh considering the supposed "obstacles" faced by my daughters today, and weep for all these kids, like my eldest, who simply turn their backs on what those men's blood have provided for them.

Paul Hue said...

Bakes wrote://////////////
...and what's with this nonsense about "production of children that they CANNOT AFFORD?" what on earth does that have to do with universal healthcare?
/////////////////////////////

Absolutely everything. If you have no job, no education, no marketable skills, how dare you have a child, that you expect the rest of us to pay for. And how dare Obama expect *me* to step up and "do the right thing" for people how are unwilling to "do the right thing" for themselves, and for their own existing or prospective kids.

One reason I don't have more kids is that I understand the resources that they will need. For one thing, I know that the "universal" K-12 education costing $13/yr available to me in the Detroit area is completely inadequate. So in contemplating another child, I must be prepared ignore that "free" education (paid for by everyone who pays taxes) and pay form my pocket at least $4,500 annual for private school. And I must pay for healthcare, which at my income lies outside of the already socialized portion of our healtchare system.

But consider the idiots, like my own eldest daughter, who took the resources that the elders of her family (including me) spent for her to attend Prairie View A&M. Did she study? No. Did she pick any sensible major? No. Did she even bother to stick around long enough to graduate? No. Did she choose to avoid producing a child with an ex-con gang-banger? No.

Well, now what? You and me are going to pay for her child's expensive "universal" K-12 education. And for his healthcare. What sense does that make that we should take more responsibility for herself and her child than she did? Meanwhile, all these efforts of ours -- government debt, convoluted tax structure -- will restrict the economy, leaving less for my daughter to earn if she ever starts behaving responsibly, and less for her former PVAM classmates who bothered to not waste their family's money, and who bothered to resist parenthood until they achieved self-sufficiency, with enough left over to provide for another, and teamed with another self-sufficient adult. Well, those smart choices of her former classmates: they now have to support not only their own kids, but the kids of people like my eldest daughter who started making babies before they could even take care of themselves.

Now do you understand my comment?

Paul Hue said...

Anonymous: The republicans are a disgrace, I agree, and the libertarians are the ones with what I consider to be the best plan. But as a practical measure, I think that the republicans have a plan that would make for less of a disaster than do the democrats. Thus I feel that one sensible action is to hold your nose and vote McCain.

Paul Hue said...

bakes wrote:///////////////
I similarly see it the civic duty of those of us who have been blessed to reach back and help pull up some of our lesser brethrens and sistrens. Doesn't mean we have to keep throwing money at them indefinitely, but certainly not everyone can go to Catholic schools for the simple reason that there aren't enough Catholic schools to go around.
/////////////////////////////

I share your civic duty, but taxes and government programs don't fall into that category. I believe both drag down the economy, leaving people like you and me with less money to freely devote to "civic duties." I also believe that just as you and I make better and more effective choices about that are the best mp3 players and cars, we make better choices about what schools are better, and what are the best ways to get the biggest bang out of my "civic duty" buck.

As for not enough catholic, or otherwise private schools, to go around: Of course not, with so much money earmarked exclusively for "universal" government-run schools. If that money got freed up, people like you and I could be pulled out of our current occupations to earn profits out of transforming children into scholars.

Bakes said...

I can't believe I wrote "lesser brethrens and sistrens", lol.. I meant "lesser fortunate".

Paul... I totally understand your comments now. I still don't quite agree, I understand that you think the civic duty thing should be voluntary... but left to the goodwill of each man you'll still end up with only some contributing and others not being motivated to. Therefore the burden is unequal in that regard (falling disproportionately on those who care), and then doubly so because some of those who care likely may contribute more pro-rated to their income than others.

It may not be ideal... but I still believe the mandatory contribution thru taxation is better. This is particularly critical for education and healthcare.

But all in all I hear your points...they're well thought out and not just the ramblings of some right-wing nut job, which is what I feared I was dealing with, lol. We may not agree but I like the conversation still.

Hopefully there's still room for change with both daughters ;-)

Paul Hue said...

@bakes: I very much enjoy connecting with you. Either one of us might hold "wrong" views, but I think we are fighting for the same goal. You see now that I am a man with some very authentic frustrations.

I thought about our virtual joust as I conversed with my Austin daughter via cell phone on my way home from work today. You know full well if you heard our discussion that it was humorous, affectionate, and casual, nothing like my venting tone here.

I can't help but hold out hope for her. But I believe that her salvation (if it is to come) will manifest from her own attitude and actions, not any massive democrat program funded by dollars taken from you by our government, and churned through its gnarly maw, and some fraction of it appearing as some resource for her, won by presenting herself as pathetic enough on some form.

Better, I say, that dollars from your wallet find it into her son's daycare center cashbox because of her labors and creativity. Or, maybe, because perhaps she is somebody that you know, whose efforts have earned your trust and applause, and you decide of your own free will to award her a Bakes Grant, with no government intermediaries taking a cut. Another thought: money from you finds its way to her via your donation to some charitable organization that has, through its actions and the results of your scrutiny, have earned your trust and confidence.

I worry that with the Obama/Democrat-type plan that you won't have enough money to make such spending choices, having "gave at the office", with your mandatory charitable organization being a compulsory one, and a monopoly at that.

Anonymous said...

Bakes "you have missed something" I like to call it p-e-r-s-p-e-c-t-i-v-e. Barrack Obama has no record what could black folks be deciding on. He talks about change then he articulates Jimmy Carter' failed foreign policies strategy. Moreover, yes he does have close relations with Socialist groups...http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/obamacrimescom/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck