Poll: Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans

Poll: Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
Friday, February 05, 2010
Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 11:35 AM

According to the latest poll from Gallup, more than one-third of Americans--36%--have a positive image of "socialism," compared to 58% who have a negative images.

Predictably, peoples' views vary by party and ideology: a clear majority of Democrats and self-identified liberals say they have positive views of socialism, compared with a minority of Republicans and conservatives.

So what does this mean? According to Gallup:

"Socialism" is not a completely negative term in today’s America. About a third of Americans respond positively when they hear the term. Some of this reaction may reflect unusual or unclear understandings of what socialism means.

Duh. This is not a surprising conclusion given the fact our schools and mainstream media seem to have their own pop-culture definition of what "socialism" means, ignoring history's lessons of what socialism in practice is really like.

and in related articles...

Friday, February 05, 2010
Re: Punishing the Generous Rich
Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 6:36 PM

As Carol points out below, President Obama and his Democrat friends love to soak the rich, despite the significant ramifications. The wealthiest in America already pay a seriously disproportionate amount of the taxes that benefit the rest of us.

As the state of New Jersey demonstrates, punishing tax policies have other serious consequences:

More than $70 billion in wealth left New Jersey between 2004 and 2008 as affluent residents moved elsewhere, according to a report released Wednesday that marks a swift reversal of fortune for a state once considered the nation’s wealthiest.

“This study makes it crystal clear that New Jersey’s tax policies are resulting in a significant decline in the state’s wealth,” said Dennis Bone, chairman of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce and president of Verizon New Jersey.

The report was commissioned by the state Chamber of Commerce and the Community Foundation of New Jersey to study the effects of wealth migration on charitable giving after executives noticed more affluent philanthropists were moving away. Wealth includes assets such as real estate, stocks, bonds, 401ks, mutual funds and vehicles.

But economists say there are many other implications for the state’s financial health.

Wealthy residents are a key driver for everything from job creation and consumer spending to the real estate market and the state budget, said Jim Hughes, dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. In New Jersey, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more than 40 percent of the state’s income tax, he said.

“That’s probably why we have these massive income shortfalls in the state budget, especially this year,” he said.

Until the tax structure is improved, he said, “we’ll probably see a continuation of the trend, until there are no more high-wealth individuals left.”

And when all the "rich" have left New Jersey, who will pay the bills? As one commenter on the story quipped, "Last one out of New Jersey, turn off the lights!"
_________________________________________
coming from...

Friday, February 05, 2010
Punishing the Generous Rich
Posted by: Carol Platt Liebau at 3:38 PM

Michael Gerson points out one of the most pernicious parts of President Obama's proposed budget -- reducing the deduction wealthy people may take as a result of supporting a charity.

Dishonestly, the President demagogues the issue, arguing that because the middle class only gets to deduct 15% of its contributions, the wealthy shouldn't get to deduct 35% -- conveniently ignoring the fact that the deductions are in line with the higher tax rates the rich pay.

Worst of all, as Gerson notes, the tax increase on the "wealthy" doesn't penalize those who keep their money for themselves -- it only punishes the most generous among them, those who give away their money to help others.

Given the sky-high and unsustainable deficits Obamanomics has already caused, no doubt the tax increase is nothing more than another Big Government revenue grab. But if wealthy people are penalized for charitable contributions, no doubt there will be fewer donations from private sources . . . which, conveniently, leaves more room for Big Government to occupy the "helping" field.

How convenient for the left.

I could put up many examples of how Obama and his administration are blatant socialists, but see a good one here...