NObama: Marxist Ideology in America?

[Disastro]

This is really a numbers game, isn't it? It's totally reasonable for anyone making over $250,000, no matter where they live, to worry about their taxes going up. Whether it's Joe the Plumber (he must be one heck of a good plumber, by the way), or someone in California, or someone who is really, really rich. So sure, they might want to vote for McCain.

But what seems clear is that most people in this country don't make that much. And they appear (based on polls) to be realizing that they're not benefitting from Republican policies. YOU may be. Or even if you're not, you may ideologically find them more appealing... so, in case you ever do get rich, nobody will try to take your money. Fine, whatever. But you're outnumbered.

I joked a couple of days ago about being "po'", and therefore voting for Obama. True, I am poor, but you don't have to be poor. You just have to make less than 250K. Whether you call that rich or middle class, those numbers are working out for Obama.

LOL!! Joe doesn't claim to make that much -- he just doesn't think those that do should get taxed by Obama.

Saying it's working out for Obama doesn't make it so...on what do you base this?

Speaking of Obama...he's the guys that thinks a flat tax should be 40% and a SALES tax. This idiot doesn't even know that there's a difference between a flat tax and a consumption tax!

This is the guy you want to vote for?

Maybe his running mate who thinks the word J-O-B-S is a three letter word?

These people are a (frightening, yet somehow amusing at times) joke on every level. I can't believe they aren't at 20% in the polls.

Seriously.

If you are "po"...punishing those with the capital to create jobs is NOT the way to help lower income individuals and families. And don't forget, there's a healthcare factor in this too. Currently, employers provide healthcare. Lose your job...lose your healthcare.

We need to be rewarding corporations and their owners -- not punishing their success. They are the drivers and movers and shakers of the economy -- as they hire and provide bennies.

[Fringe]

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

The progressive tax is not what I'm scared about when Obama talks about "spreading the wealth around". It's about handing out tax rebates to people that don't pay taxes.

The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability” -- in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

link

If this isn't pure socialism then I don't know what is.

[Disastro]

The progressive tax is not what I'm scared about when Obama talks about "spreading the wealth around". It's about handing out tax rebates to people that don't pay taxes.

link

If this isn't pure socialism then I don't know what is.

Also this from the NY Post:

NY Post link

Good stuff, LF!

[editor]

I joked a couple of days ago about being "po'", and therefore voting for Obama. True, I am poor, but you don't have to be poor. You just have to make less than 250K. Whether you call that rich or middle class, those numbers are working out for Obama.

Back during Clinton's last run he defined "millionarie" as anyone who makes more than $200k/year.

In this election $250k is the hot button number. I guess it's inflation.

[N Judah]

$250,000/year in Texas is a lot of money...still not "rich"...but in California it's chickenfeed because money doesn't go as far there. So, how will the "messiah" Obama adjust for these factors?

What difference does it make? He's already got the state locked up.

Refundable tax credits = food stamps without the bureaucracy. If you don't have any tax liability (i.e. you make less than $12k/yr or so) you could probably use the help. This isn't really a "hot button" issue for these reasons.

[Disastro]

What difference does it make? He's already got the state locked up.

Refundable tax credits = food stamps without the bureaucracy. If you don't have any tax liability (i.e. you make less than $12k/yr or so) you could probably use the help. This isn't really a "hot button" issue for these reasons.

Yeah...I know...

Wait! What's that sound I hear coming from Kali-forn-ia?

"Baaaaa...Baaaaa..."

[VicMan]

Why are we talking about where politicians send their kids to school?

It's almost universal that their kids will go to private schools, whether there be an

[cottonmather0]

Cottonmather, I understand your point but I don't think the paragraph really attacks Obama's argument.

I think a start would be to say "Mr. Obama, we already have an equality of chance because of a lack of an established political elite, X, Y, and Z" - This would contradict Obama's statement - it may help to look around for more context to see who he is speaking to and what he uses to support his argument. Attack these support columns and address them.

You said: "attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK." - Are you referring to the "When they came for the A, I said nothing because of X. When they came for the B, I said nothing because of Y. When they came for me, nobody spoke up for us." ?

Which voting sites do not require ID? I think ALL ought to require ID. Voting is sacred and therefore we must ensure that people do not use ID to exclude people, but we should also ensure that as few people as possible try to cheat the system.

Vic, what I was saying in my sleep deprived / alcohol induced post on Wednesday night was that a vast majority of income taxes in the US are paid by a minority of taxpayers (25% of taxpayers pay 86% of taxes and 10% pay 70% and so on... link), so explicitly promising to raise taxes on the minority to share with the majority is a can't lose proposition for politician who only needs a majority of the votes.

"The type and formula of most schemes of philan-thropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man. For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism until an equilibrium is produced by a readjustment of all interests and rights. They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view. They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion

[N Judah]

Fair and balanced: (no, really!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/persona...ama-bounce.html

[Disastro]

With regards to all the other stuff, calling someone a "Marxist" is a pejorative term and does nothing to help the debate except polarize opinion.

You were cruising along and then you hit "a speed bump". Why?

Why the ridiculous "self-censoring" when it's not even warranted? People need to quit being "respectful" to those who do not deserve it. The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon were ISLAMIC TERRORISTS (not freedom fighters or misguided and misunderstood souls). And Obama is Marxist. So please, let's get back to calling things what they are.

Why try to deny it? Face it, accept it...embrace it...because "thems the facts".

Obama is what he is. Do you think debating over the shade of blue the sky is a worthwhile thing? Of course not.

Obama's ideas ARE Marxist/Socialist. I've been all through that and there's plenty of evidence online and off to support this claim -- but don't expect me to rehash it. What's more frightening though...is that we do not know the extent or depth of his Marxism...

If he gets in there, we'll find out. Of that I am sure.

[memebag]

This is why our federal government is so big these days, because people tend to vote for who promises to give them more, with promising to pay for people's health care next on the list, couched in words like "access" and "availability." Health care is already accessible and available in the United States to every single person, but it is not for free. What people are asking for - and what the government is fighting itself over how to structure - is for SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT.

I don't think so. I think people are asking why we pay more for health care than any other industrialized nation, and why our quality of life, longevity and infant mortality are so bad. The people in Germany, Italy, Australia, Japan, etc., aren't getting "someone else" to pay for their health care. They're just not paying for things they don't need, like advertising, insurance profits, lobbyists, etc.

[N Judah]

Wait! What's that sound I hear coming from Kali-forn-ia?

"Baaaaa...Baaaaa..."

So true. They will vote for him only because "he's not the other guy." There are lots of good reasons to elect an official but I don't think that is one of them.

Having said that, I think Obama polls well in "Coward-li-forn-ia" because deep down inside they subconsciously realize that he is so much stronger than any of them could ever hope to be.

[Disastro]

So true. They will vote for him only because "he's not the other guy." There are lots of good reasons to elect an official but I don't think that is one of them.

Having said that, I think Obama polls well in "Coward-li-forn-ia" because deep down inside they subconsciously realize that he is so much stronger than any of them could ever hope to be.

Exactly! I like the way you...well...*think* N Judah!

[cottonmather0]

You were cruising along and then you hit "a speed bump". Why?

Why the ridiculous "self-censoring" when it's not even warranted? People need to quit being "respectful" to those who do not deserve it. The terrorists who flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon were ISLAMIC TERRORISTS (not freedom fighters or misguided and misunderstood souls). And Obama is Marxist. So please, let's get back to calling things what they are.

Why try to deny it? Face it, accept it...embrace it...because "thems the facts".

Obama is what he is. Do you think debating over the shade of blue the sky is a worthwhile thing? Of course not.

Obama's ideas ARE Marxist/Socialist. I've been all through that and there's plenty of evidence online and off to support this claim -- but don't expect me to rehash it. What's more frightening though...is that we do not know the extent or depth of his Marxism...

If he gets in there, we'll find out. Of that I am sure.

A very important lesson I've learned in life is that calling names never fosters a debate, it only makes the other side mad and unwilling to listen. In that post, I did say that he has tendencies that match up quite well with Marxist beliefs, but he doesn't describe himself that way and so far hasn't described his candidacy as part of a historical struggle to overthrow the ruling class, so you run into the problem that anyone you try to have a reasoned conversation with in this country (or nearly everyone) takes the word "Marxist" as an insult when applied to them. If John McCain came out and used that word the press would start throwing around words like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" and "dichotomy" and "materialism" and then we would just get bogged down in a semantic debate trying to prove if he met the technical definition of a "Marxist." Why not just talk about the his policies and beliefs themselves and let the debate follow? If the title of this thread was, "I don't want Obama to raise my taxes!" you would get to skip the 50% of the posts objecting to the term and another 25% that threw insults back in return.

I agree about the "ISLAMIC TERRORIST" term, but that's how they describe themselves. Obama doesn't describe himself that way and therefore would argue the point without having to argue bigger ideas. Big difference.

In response to the OP (and in line with my sig images), I thought this was particularly good today. The author, John McWhorter, himself is liberal and black and, in my opinion, a very reasonable and talented writer:

On The Content of His Character

If Obama loses, let's please not assume that racism was the cause.

John McWhorter, The New Republic Published: Thursday, October 16, 2008

In the increasingly unlikely event that Barack Obama does not become president, Martin Luther King's dream would reveal itself as tragically unrealized 40 years after his death. Not, however, because whites were standing in that dream's way, but because of the black people standing alongside them.

Yes, black people. I find myself unable to trust that more than a sliver of black America would be able, if Obama lost, to assess that outcome according to--of all things--the content of his character.

For 40 years, black America has been misled by a claim that we can only be our best with the total eclipse of racist bias. Few put it in so many words, but the obsession with things like tabulating ever-finer shades of racism and calling for a "national conversation" on race in which whites would listen to blacks talk about racism are based on an assumption: that the descendants of African slaves in the United States are the only group of humans in history whose problems will vanish with a "level playing field," something no other group has ever supposed could be a reality.

John McWhorter is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the author of Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue: The Untold History of English.

Copyright

[VicMan]

IMO we should try to define words when using them. I.E. if one uses "Marxist," ask what that means.

Anyhow, Mather said "Vic, what I was saying in my sleep deprived / alcohol induced post on Wednesday night was that a vast majority of income taxes in the US are paid by a minority of taxpayers (25% of taxpayers pay 86% of taxes and 10% pay 70% and so on... link), so explicitly promising to raise taxes on the minority to share with the majority is a can't lose proposition for politician who only needs a majority of the votes."

* Aah, I see.

Mather said: "This is why our federal government is so big these days, because people tend to vote for who promises to give them more, with promising to pay for people's health care next on the list, couched in words like "access" and "availability." Health care is already accessible and available in the United States to every single person, but it is not for free. What people are asking for - and what the government is fighting itself over how to structure - is for SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT."

* And I believe someone else should pay for it - I want the best option out of the following:

** Federal and/or state government-funded private health care system (and control of the private health care system - i.e. health care provider rates are fixed and under most circumstances people CANNOT be denied health care)

** A Canada-style state-based health care system

** A federal health care system

The status quo has a serious problem since private health care costs rose. The feds need to control the system (spending does not necessarily have to be raised for this) - We need to specifically find a way to combat health care lobbyists to prevent them from influencing politicians (legally I do not know how, but maybe we could list names and have people protest outside of their homes)

I am open to any system that offers universal health care coverage via any means (either through regulation of private health care providers OR through an actual government system)

[musicman]

IMO we should try to define words when using them. I.E. if one uses "Marxist," ask what that means.

if you have to ask....maybe you shouldn't be voting.

[dudemeister]

I think some of you guys have been watching too much Fox News.

Anyways we already have a masive distribution of wealth, it is called corporate socialism. Ever wonder why the goverment is bailing out all those banks in order for them to stay afloat even though those CEO's failed miserably?

Basically these corporations get to keep all the profit, while the public sector and all the taxpayers get to accumilate all the debt.

Just so eveyone knows, I am not an Obama supporter, just saying it how it is.

[Disastro]

A very important lesson I've learned in life is that calling names never fosters a debate, it only makes the other side mad and unwilling to listen. In that post, I did say that he has tendencies that match up quite well with Marxist beliefs, but he doesn't describe himself that way and so far hasn't described his candidacy as part of a historical struggle to overthrow the ruling class, so you run into the problem that anyone you try to have a reasoned conversation with in this country (or nearly everyone) takes the word "Marxist" as an insult when applied to them. If John McCain came out and used that word the press would start throwing around words like "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie" and "dichotomy" and "materialism" and then we would just get bogged down in a semantic debate trying to prove if he met the technical definition of a "Marxist." Why not just talk about the his policies and beliefs themselves and let the debate follow? If the title of this thread was, "I don't want Obama to raise my taxes!" you would get to skip the 50% of the posts objecting to the term and another 25% that threw insults back in return.

I agree about the "ISLAMIC TERRORIST" term, but that's how they describe themselves. Obama doesn't describe himself that way and therefore would argue the point without having to argue bigger ideas. Big difference.

In response to the OP (and in line with my sig images), I thought this was particularly good today. The author, John McWhorter, himself is liberal and black and, in my opinion, a very reasonable and talented writer:

Well of course he doesn't describe himself that way. He *might* lose some votes that way. No, he's counting on all the votes from the uneducated and borderline Marxists in this country to put him in the White House. He knows there's a huge constituency of stupidity out there. I'll give Obama this -- he's no fool.

But, I am glad that you see his policies as they are. That's good enough for me...and I don't care who takes my word for it as long as they "see the light" one way or another. It's not the journey...it's the destination.

Just to be clear: I was NOT saying Obama is an Islamic terrorist. I using that purely as an illustration on semantics.

But, I think I get what you are saying: Don't get bogged down in labels...just focus on the policies. That's good enough, but people should also be free to call him what he is.

I mean, I don't know about you but I call a "dog" a "dog"...not a "four-legged hairy mammal that barks".

Dis

[dudemeister]

Well of course he doesn't describe himself that way. He *might* lose some votes that way. No, he's counting on all the votes from the uneducated and borderline Marxists in this country to put him in the White House. He knows there's a huge constituency of stupidity out there. I'll give Obama this -- he's no fool.

You basically just described one half of the electorate. I agree with you that Obama is too populist but, I don't think McCain is that much better and the thought of Sarah Palin being president in the event that McCain dies in office, scares the crap out of me more than the thought of Obama being president. I would also argue that many of McCain's supporters are also in the uneducated category.

This election shows that we really need a third party system in this country since the two party system we have now only caters to the idiots at both ends of the extreme.

[Disastro]

You basically just described one half of the electorate. I agree with you that Obama is too populist but, I don't think McCain is that much better and the thought of Sarah Palin being president in the event that McCain dies in office, scares the crap out of me more than the thought of Obama being president. I would also argue that many of McCain's supporters are also in the uneducated category.

This election shows that we really need a third party system in this country since the two party system we have now only caters to the idiots at both ends of the extreme.

I wish a third party candidate had a chance. I agree with you on this...we definitely should have a viable third party.

[VicMan]

if you have to ask....maybe you shouldn't be voting.

I wasn't necessarily meaning a dictionary definition, I was meaning when Guy A calls Candidate A Marxist, what does Guy A mean by that? It's not a matter of "I don't know the definition" so much as "What rationale is Guy A using to describe the candidate as a Marxist?"

[musicman]

I wasn't necessarily meaning a dictionary definition, I was meaning when Guy A calls Candidate A Marxist, what does Guy A mean by that? It's not a matter of "I don't know the definition" so much as "What rationale is Guy A using to describe the candidate as a Marxist?"

how many elections have you had the opportunity to vote?

[VicMan]

how many elections have you had the opportunity to vote?

This one is my first presidential election in which I can vote.

[musicman]

This one is my first presidential election in which I can vote.

congrats.....you'll start to realize why political advertisements are structured the way they are. you have to do your own research and decide who you'll vote for. basing it solely on these ads doesn't give the clear picture.

[Deut28Thirteen]

This one is my first presidential election in which I can vote.

This is my first election I can vote in too. I wish I could have voted in the Texas primary.

[HtownWxBoy]

Well of course he doesn't describe himself that way. He *might* lose some votes that way. No, he's counting on all the votes from the uneducated and borderline Marxists in this country to put him in the White House. He knows there's a huge constituency of stupidity out there. I'll give Obama this -- he's no fool.

But, I am glad that you see his policies as they are. That's good enough for me...and I don't care who takes my word for it as long as they "see the light" one way or another. It's not the journey...it's the destination.

Just to be clear: I was NOT saying Obama is an Islamic terrorist. I using that purely as an illustration on semantics.

But, I think I get what you are saying: Don't get bogged down in labels...just focus on the policies. That's good enough, but people should also be free to call him what he is.

I mean, I don't know about you but I call a "dog" a "dog"...not a "four-legged hairy mammal that barks".

Dis

[editor]

Talk about Obama, boys; not each other.

[Trae]

This is my first election I can vote in too. I wish I could have voted in the Texas primary.

Mine too. Let's start a club.

[editor]

This thread has more than run its course. It is now closed.