Skip to content or view screen version

Is Obama Like Hugo Chavez: Trying to Buy the Presidential Election?

Rosa Russo | 03.09.2008 22:01 | Analysis | World

Compare the method and similarity between Obama’s proposed spending of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help the poor and Socialist Hugo Chavez’s proposed programs in 1992 when running for President of Venezuela.

Obama repeatedly states he will tax U.S. businesses and higher income Americans to give “low income Citizens relief from pay taxes.” Relentlessly Obama states that if elected president, he will ask Congress to spend billions of your U.S. Taxpayer Dollars on a multitude of government programs for the poor. While that sounds humanitarian, Obama has failed to disclose how his “billion dollar spending programs” may cause widespread inflation, increase unemployment and weaken the U.S. economy—injuring the low income Americans he asked to vote for him.

Compare the method and similarity between Obama’s proposed spending of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help the poor and Socialist Hugo Chavez’s proposed programs in 1992 when running for President of Venezuela: You may decide if there is similarity.

In 1992, Hugo Chavez was in dire need of votes to win the Presidential election. So Chavez promised the poor that if elected President, he would spend billions on welfare and social-programs to help improvised Venezuelans. Chavez said his government would pay for these programs—by taxing working Venezuelans and businesses: and the rest would come from oil sales. Hugo Chavez only then came from behind to win the Venezuelan Presidential election when huge numbers of poor that normally did not vote voted for him. Is Obama using “Hugo Chavez’s election strategy” to get elected U.S. President? Obama like Hugo Chavez, speech after speech, promises to spend—billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars on welfare and other programs for America’s poor—paid for by increasing income taxes against specific Americans and businesses? Like Hugo Chavez, Obama has successfully tapped millions of poor Americans to vote for him that otherwise might not vote.

One must wonder if Obama has a clue about economics or running a business. Obama said he has an economic plan to help the U.S. economy. Then proposes increasing taxes charged against Americans and businesses’ income to pay for his proposed social programs: doesn’t that translate into more unemployment? Obama’s plan to reduce or eliminate investment tax incentives is synonymous with chasing away investment capital needed to start and expand businesses that otherwise would employ workers. Under Obama’s economic plan, retailers and other businesses could become dependent on an Obama inflationary welfare state for consumers thus creating inflation.

Rosa Russo

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

??ask Bush who brought the vote with electoral & use force combined with racism

04.09.2008 01:59

truth is they both suck & represent corporate politburo, but obama is less of a raciast warmonger

James


industrial strength doses of diazapam

04.09.2008 05:02

This bubbling pondlife is arguing that giving poor people who might not usual vote a reason to vote is bad [for democracy]. When the pondlife is that bad, one can only thank the Lord for whatever it is that manages to crawl out and represent the right. Evolution wouldn't have done that.

Back into the swamp!
Go on! Off with you!
the power of Christ & Diazapam compels you!

emergency exorcist commenteer


Defending the right wing?

04.09.2008 09:34

Rosa Russo - would you really rather have McCain? There's something surreal - and seriously chilling - about an America that would seriously consider voting for a man that would sing a "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" song in a public forum. As James says, Obama won't make a good president since he represents a part of the existing power elite that doesn't want decent democracy or a more equitable wealth redistribution. Nevertheless, he is somewhat less dangerous than McCain, who if voted in as president would suggest that Americans want more dangerous and fearful years of Bushite neoconservativism.

It's true however that Obama won't be much different to the likes of Clinton - whose own term was fairly murderous. Don't kid yourself that either of them at all represent the "left" or an awakening of genuine people power: they don't. Read Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and Mark Curtis (amongst many others) if you want to know why in detail. But your political position shines through your article: you are aligned with the Republican party, and to discredit the Democrats you put forward specious arguments about "low income Americans" that (I suspect) you don't really care about at all.

Jon


anti-obama propaganda

04.09.2008 10:07

"Then proposes increasing taxes charged against Americans and businesses’ income to pay for his proposed social programs: doesn’t that translate into more unemployment? Obama’s plan to reduce or eliminate investment tax incentives is synonymous with chasing away investment capital needed to start and expand businesses that otherwise would employ workers."

Sounds like a good strategy, actually - Tax the rich to pay for welfare. America *severely* needs a stronger welfare system. Does that translate into unemployment? No. European countries have much better welfare systems paid for from income tax, there is high employment, and capital is not 'chased away'. Americas unemployment rate is at a four year high, according to the Labor Department, despite not taxing to pay for welfare.

But I hardly think that Obama is going to bring in progressive welfare reforms; whether he was a community organiser in his younger days or not, and personally wants it or not, a president can only do what big business wants.

"Who'er ye vote fae, some baw heid [testicle head] in a suit gets in", as they say in Glasgow.


Kathy