4 ms·

Yes, mullingitover, because that is the ONLY thing Marxism is about. Since you, and those who down-voted my posts, are so smart, please explain how Obama's att

Yes, mullingitover, because that is the ONLY thing Marxism is about. Since you, and those who down-voted my posts, are so smart, please explain how Obama's attempts to increase state control over our energy, health care, economy, finance, and education are not Marxists ideals and leading us down that socialist path. Please explain how Obama's blocking of domestic energy supplies via the assertion of government ownership and regulation over massive amounts of acreage isn't Marxist. Please explain how Obama's maniacal zeal for progressive income taxes specifically targeting the rich is not Marxist. Please explain how Obama's desire to reinstate estate taxes isn't Marxist. Please explain how Dodd-Frank wasn't a giant leap towards the centralization of the U.S.'s financial system into the hands of the federal government. Please explain Obama's appointments of self-proclaimed Marxist Van Jones and his relationships with his mentor, and documented member of the Communist Party, Frank Marshall Davis, and the links of David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to the Chicago Communist Party. Instead of down-voting my posts, why not read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, for yourself and see exactly how Obama's policies align with that document's 10 steps. No, we're not to the gulag stage yet, but that is certainly the path Obama has us on. Read and see.

pdkl95 11y ago
You seem to be confusing state ownership and management of industry with regulation of private industries. The state regulating and industry by banning various things or putting various requirements on the exploitation of common resources isn't anything like Marx's discussion of the state owning the means of production. > domestic energy supplies If you want to drill for oil on public land, your fellow citizens would like you to not fsck-up the land while you exploit it. Only in childish pure-capitalist fantasies does a business get to exploit common resources without without any social responsibility. > progressive income taxes Again, you apparently don't understand the difference between Marx's ideas of state ownership and modern economic theories, only some of which is even considered socialist. You tax the rich because they are the people with the money. Trying to squeeze it out of the poor with a flat tax is not only wildly socially irresponsible, it also creates social unrest. It also fails a producing revenue for the government. Oh, and you did know that progressive income tax started a loooong time before Marx was born, right? Even the ancient Romans had a progressive income tax. > estate tax Nothing specific to do with any of the economic suggestions discussed by Marx. Like the progressive income tax, limiting the dynastic accumulation of "old money" with an estate tax is a lot older than Marx. It's not like it even affects many people, contrary to the lies spread by many right-wing pundits. Are you leaving more than $5,430,000 to your kids? You did know that the estate tax exempts that amount, right? ... Ok, I have better things to do than to point out the errors in your fairly stereotypical GOP-propaganda-based view of the world. Obama has done more to continue Republican policies than any other modern president. You might want to take note of that - and do more reading about the history of politics on all sides. Obama and our current government have done some very worrying things (the Patriot Act power grabs that are the subject of this thread are a good example). I suggest focusing on these real problems if you want to accomplish something useful. Retreading old, easily debunked GOP is a waste of time and distracts from the actual problems that need to be addressed.
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  I'm not confusing anything, pdk. As ONE example, what do you think Obama's goals of a single-payer healthcare system are if not state ownership of healthcare? What do you think the IRS's control over your healthcare is if not state ownership. If you think that is regulation, you have a very different definition of the word than I do. Your second point is an appeal to probability fallacy. You conclude that Obama blocked development of energy in America because companies wouldn't develop energy responsibly, when there is no logical reason to make that assumption given that plenty of companies produce energy in non-destructive ways. Your understanding of tax systems seems flawed. There are many, many countries in the world, especially in the Soviet block region, that have implemented flat tax systems, have have enjoyed economic growth, and have not had the social unrest you claim comes with the territory. Even in countries where the flat tax system hasn't gone as well as hoped, other factors, such as government corruption, wasteful spending, high tax rates, etc. have been destructive elements that cannot be ignored. This is all irrelevant, however, and simply a smokescreen to hide the fact that Obama's is obsessed with taxing the rich (and the middle class) using Marx's envy-based tax system. I'm not sure what your point is on estate taxes. Are you saying that if a bad policy only affects a small number of people then it is OK? Or, do you mean to suggest if I don't have $5.43 million in my estate I shouldn't have an opinion on said bad policy? I have better things to do that argue the obvious with someone who is obviously playing team sports. I'm surprised you didn't find a way to fit Fox News or Rush Limbaugh into your argument. I am not a member nor a supporter of the GOP. I am well aware that Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies, while sprinkling his own brand of Marxist idealism on them in order to really polish the giant turd that is the federal government today. How is this relevant? I don't support either of the big parties and suggest you and others consider doing the same. Your civic duty isn't a basketball game. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, as long as you vote for what is right. Currently, I don't believe correct governing principles exist in either of the major parties. They are both corrupt.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Let's see... you don't understand the difference between the government managing healthcare payments/insurance (money) and managing healthcare itself (there are a many differen ways to run a single payer systems than just the NHS model). Your tax-law ideas are half right-wing standard propaganda, half nonsense. "obsessed with taxing the rich"? The rich enjoy the lowest taxes in living memory. They need to be taxed more to counteract the income disparity. Failure to do so will lead to revolution. "wasteful spending" - yet another GOP talking point. $5M is plenty of inheritance. I would personally tax anything above that at 100% - large amounts of inherited wealth is high damaging. The current law in this area is an acceptable compromise. (Also, as most people don't even care, just bringing this up suggests you follow right wing politics and propaganda. > Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies This is the most accurate thing you've said in this entire thread. You have just said yourself that Obama isn't a Marxist. > How is this relevant? Well, paid shill for the GOP was one possibility, as you use so much of their rhetoric. Especially considering: > /user?id=innocentoldguy > created: 22 days ago However, there is a better explanation, given this nonsense: > I don't support either of the big parties > I believe God created > Of course people choose to be gay. > I'm approaching 50 So you're a teahadist. Aka, "useful idiot for the Koch bros". I'm sure you like to use the term "independent", due to the bad PR association. You have several decades of catching up to do - not just on the political situation of the last few decades, but also modern economic theory and social theory. Instead, I suspect you'll continue to support the rich, who have proven very successful at getting what they want by manipulating fears of the "other", while dangling dreams of future riches. Maybe one day you'll notice.

pdkl95 11y ago

You seem to be confusing state ownership and management of industry with regulation of private industries. The state regulating and industry by banning various things or putting various requirements on the exploitation of common resources isn't anything like Marx's discussion of the state owning the means of production. > domestic energy supplies If you want to drill for oil on public land, your fellow citizens would like you to not fsck-up the land while you exploit it. Only in childish pure-capitalist fantasies does a business get to exploit common resources without without any social responsibility. > progressive income taxes Again, you apparently don't understand the difference between Marx's ideas of state ownership and modern economic theories, only some of which is even considered socialist. You tax the rich because they are the people with the money. Trying to squeeze it out of the poor with a flat tax is not only wildly socially irresponsible, it also creates social unrest. It also fails a producing revenue for the government. Oh, and you did know that progressive income tax started a loooong time before Marx was born, right? Even the ancient Romans had a progressive income tax. > estate tax Nothing specific to do with any of the economic suggestions discussed by Marx. Like the progressive income tax, limiting the dynastic accumulation of "old money" with an estate tax is a lot older than Marx. It's not like it even affects many people, contrary to the lies spread by many right-wing pundits. Are you leaving more than $5,430,000 to your kids? You did know that the estate tax exempts that amount, right? ... Ok, I have better things to do than to point out the errors in your fairly stereotypical GOP-propaganda-based view of the world. Obama has done more to continue Republican policies than any other modern president. You might want to take note of that - and do more reading about the history of politics on all sides. Obama and our current government have done some very worrying things (the Patriot Act power grabs that are the subject of this thread are a good example). I suggest focusing on these real problems if you want to accomplish something useful. Retreading old, easily debunked GOP is a waste of time and distracts from the actual problems that need to be addressed.

innocentoldguy 11y ago
I'm not confusing anything, pdk. As ONE example, what do you think Obama's goals of a single-payer healthcare system are if not state ownership of healthcare? What do you think the IRS's control over your healthcare is if not state ownership. If you think that is regulation, you have a very different definition of the word than I do. Your second point is an appeal to probability fallacy. You conclude that Obama blocked development of energy in America because companies wouldn't develop energy responsibly, when there is no logical reason to make that assumption given that plenty of companies produce energy in non-destructive ways. Your understanding of tax systems seems flawed. There are many, many countries in the world, especially in the Soviet block region, that have implemented flat tax systems, have have enjoyed economic growth, and have not had the social unrest you claim comes with the territory. Even in countries where the flat tax system hasn't gone as well as hoped, other factors, such as government corruption, wasteful spending, high tax rates, etc. have been destructive elements that cannot be ignored. This is all irrelevant, however, and simply a smokescreen to hide the fact that Obama's is obsessed with taxing the rich (and the middle class) using Marx's envy-based tax system. I'm not sure what your point is on estate taxes. Are you saying that if a bad policy only affects a small number of people then it is OK? Or, do you mean to suggest if I don't have $5.43 million in my estate I shouldn't have an opinion on said bad policy? I have better things to do that argue the obvious with someone who is obviously playing team sports. I'm surprised you didn't find a way to fit Fox News or Rush Limbaugh into your argument. I am not a member nor a supporter of the GOP. I am well aware that Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies, while sprinkling his own brand of Marxist idealism on them in order to really polish the giant turd that is the federal government today. How is this relevant? I don't support either of the big parties and suggest you and others consider doing the same. Your civic duty isn't a basketball game. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, as long as you vote for what is right. Currently, I don't believe correct governing principles exist in either of the major parties. They are both corrupt.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Let's see... you don't understand the difference between the government managing healthcare payments/insurance (money) and managing healthcare itself (there are a many differen ways to run a single payer systems than just the NHS model). Your tax-law ideas are half right-wing standard propaganda, half nonsense. "obsessed with taxing the rich"? The rich enjoy the lowest taxes in living memory. They need to be taxed more to counteract the income disparity. Failure to do so will lead to revolution. "wasteful spending" - yet another GOP talking point. $5M is plenty of inheritance. I would personally tax anything above that at 100% - large amounts of inherited wealth is high damaging. The current law in this area is an acceptable compromise. (Also, as most people don't even care, just bringing this up suggests you follow right wing politics and propaganda. > Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies This is the most accurate thing you've said in this entire thread. You have just said yourself that Obama isn't a Marxist. > How is this relevant? Well, paid shill for the GOP was one possibility, as you use so much of their rhetoric. Especially considering: > /user?id=innocentoldguy > created: 22 days ago However, there is a better explanation, given this nonsense: > I don't support either of the big parties > I believe God created > Of course people choose to be gay. > I'm approaching 50 So you're a teahadist. Aka, "useful idiot for the Koch bros". I'm sure you like to use the term "independent", due to the bad PR association. You have several decades of catching up to do - not just on the political situation of the last few decades, but also modern economic theory and social theory. Instead, I suspect you'll continue to support the rich, who have proven very successful at getting what they want by manipulating fears of the "other", while dangling dreams of future riches. Maybe one day you'll notice.