History and Demogogues

[JohnT]

Tulc:

Thanks for the definition, and I can see your concern, but I think it is inaccurate.

That is because I saw Obama engaging in demagoguery in almost the same manner as Hitler when he singled out the Jews for the problems of the country.

His solution was a "robin hood tax" take from the rich, and give to the poor, solving nothing in the process. (actually a form of income redistribution or reverse corporate welfare)

I did not compare him to Hitler, but I mentioned the tactics that Hitler used, and properly concluded some similarities in rhetoric. Therefore, I did not vilify Obama. I respect the man, but dislike his ideas.

Therefore as the author of the thread, I propose a new subject, more defined, less of a flame.

WHAT GOOD OR BAD THINGS WILL COME FROM OBAMA'S $500 PER PERSON OIL REBATE PROPOSAL?

 

[PatrickM]

Therefore as the author of the thread, I propose a new subject, more defined, less of a flame.

WHAT GOOD OR BAD THINGS WILL COME FROM OBAMA'S $500 PER PERSON OIL REBATE PROPOSAL?

Well, if it is based on a windfall tax on oil co's, and since companies are (theoretically) in business to make a profit, and since an additional tax would cut into said profit, and knowing companies won't just willing eat this cut . . . (talk about a run-on sentence!)

Indeed, the cost for this kind of "rebate" will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, hence negating the rebate. And once the rebate has been used up on the higher prices . . .

We will be worse off!

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

His plan is the same sort of demagoguery that Hitler used in 1939. Hitller blamed the hated Jews for every problem that Germany had. The senator’s plan is ludicrous, and it could generate another Kristallnacht, this time at our local gas stations.

Sorry, but when you compare a proposal to tax oil companies with Nazism and genocide, you lose all your credibility.

Maybe my sense of morality is totally warped, but I feel T. Boone Pickens having to make do with 2 LearJets rather than three is just a teensy bit less serious than people getting rounded up and sent to the gas chambers.

 

[JohnT]

Sorry, but when you compare a proposal to tax oil companies with Nazism and genocide, you lose all your credibility.

Please do not add words to my post. That is not nice.

The word demagoguery is appropriately used when a person tries to scape goat one group of people or one industry for the ills of the nation.

When you add words to other people's posts, it is you who use all credibility.

 

[Bootstrap]

The word demagoguery is appropriately used when a person tries to scape goat one group of people or one industry for the ills of the nation.

Hitler clearly did that with the Jews.

If I recall correctly, Obama said that oil companies were one factor behind the high price of oil. I don't think he blamed them for the public school system, AIDS, or acne. And I don't think he said that they were the only or even the main cause for high gas prices. He did imply that while our economy was hurting because of high gas prices, the oil companies raked in obscene profits rather than try to lower prices to consumers.

To me, implying that there is at least a partial relationship between oil companies and the price of products they sell is not scapegoating. And given the fact that our government has heavily subsidized oil exploration for an industry that had money of its own, there *is* an argument for taxing windfall profits now.

Me, I'm neither a fan of taxing windfall profits nor of subsidizing oil exploration. Oil companies have money of their own. Let them explore with their own money. Some of that oil is on federally owned lands. Let the oil companies pay market prices for oil they pump from those lands. Some areas would be cause huge difficulties if there were oil spills, e.g. areas off the recreational coastlines of the Gulf or California. Protect those areas.

But where is the demagoguery in this?

Jonathan

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Typically a "demagogue" is a term of reproach used by the elite.

Basically any political figure that gets into power by their popularity and influence among the elite is considered "okay", but a a political figure that gets their power and influence from the people regardless of what the elite think is a "demagogue".

It represents the elite's basic fear of the people.

So, first off, Obama is no demagogue as he fits in with the elite just fine.

And second off, let us all think to ourselves why it is a bad thing that a political figure actually claim power from the people rather than from some shadowy influence peddler?