Obama wants to Redistribute Wealth

[bush_cheney2004]

Are we going to get a surprise tomorrow, election day?

We already have a surprise...just ask Hillary and Bill Clinton.

[Liam]

Lenin might be, but Marx sure isn't.

Obama wants to "give" 95% of working Americans an income tax cut, even though 40% of working Americans don't pay income tax, and only recently added the work provision in his plan, after taking heat for there not being one.

Obama wants to give 95% of American taxpayers a tax cut. Not all taxpayers pay income tax but all pay social security taxes and other government levies (FICA, for example).

[Mortui]

Socialism is a process. It is not stagnant and does not lose ground once gained. It is a process toward first the nanny state and once the accomplishment of a single central authority is realized, either in it's right wing dictatorial form or it's left wing politburo form, it becomes the totalitarian state.

You may laugh at this but the US is the last place where anyone has any fear of big government. It is the last place where any warnings about the tyranny of government can be heard. The statement that, "There's nothing wrong with a little socialism." is really losing sight of the reason the US exists in the first place. It was born out of a resistance to tyrannical and overbearing government. You are asking to cease vigilance as it is in your view unnecessary. Government is benign and benevolent. It doesn't seem that was the message of the Founders of the Constitution- well perhaps some, like Hamilton, who was a monetarist, but for the most part George Washington summed up the concensus at the tim when he said, "Government is not reason, it is force. Like fire it is at best a reluctant servant and at worst a tyrannical master."

Barack Obama's economic plan are the exact same steps government took before the Great Depression. John McCain's economic plan isn't much better except for being a little bit less interventionist. The great depression was continued on by policies of the Roosevelt administration. Fortunately war interrupted the socialistic trend of the US and Nazism and Communism sullied the ideology in North America to a degree but it seems by your statements here it was only a stopgap measure as vigilance is once again lost to indifference.

Are we going to get a surprise tomorrow, election day?

If socialism is a process, it can be stopped during that process, at a point where there cease to be more benefits from furthering the process. Since the US has taken some of the benefits from a socialist society, why shouldn't we take the rest? The US has plenty of safeguards against it becoming a totalitarian state, and I have faith that it can see what is best for itself.

Yes, the United States was born out of resistance to the government of Britain, but it turned around and did to itself many of the same things Britain was doing. The difference was that the US got to choose it (but not really, because it didn't even choose revolution for itself in the first place-it was forced into it by the Continental Congress which didn't actually have the right to declare independence for the colonies). I do not ask anyone to cease resisting a tyrannical and overbearing government. I ask people to allow the The United States Constitution was written because a weak government proved not to work(the Articles of Confederation). The Constitution wasn't even supposed to be written. The Confederation Congress was supposed to be revising the Articles, not writing a new document. Basically, the United States is founded on the idea of big government(federalism) and made for the benefit of the people. The purpose of government is to help the people.

I say again, having some socialist aspects in your government doesn't make it entirely socialist, it makes it innovative and gives it a better chance of 'getting it right'.

[JerrySeinfeld]

After the failed experiments in Canada and Europe - not to mention the collapse of the entire Soviet network and the rapid right wing movement of "communist" China, I can't even believe we're having this conversation about the country seen as the leader of the free-enterprise world.

This man is a hard core Ideologue of more than 20 years that has used his accidental good fortune of a financial crisis and societal war fatigue (of a war we're winning, by the way) to parlay into quite possibly the worst form of left wing drift ever seen in the history of the great USA.

Freaking scary.

Edited November 4, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[GostHacked]

After the failed experiments in Canada and Europe - not to mention the collapse of the entire Soviet network and the rapid right wing movement of "communist" China, I can't even believe we're having this conversation about the country seen as the leader of the free-enterprise world.

How did socialism fail in Canada?

This man is a hard core Ideologue of more than 20 years that has used his accidental good fortune of a financial crisis and societal war fatigue (of a war we're winning, by the way) to parlay into quite possibly the worst form of left wing drift ever seen in the history of the great USA

Might be to counter-act the past 8 years of right wing drift.

[Mortui]

After the failed experiments in Canada and Europe - not to mention the collapse of the entire Soviet network and the rapid right wing movement of "communist" China, I can't even believe we're having this conversation about the country seen as the leader of the free-enterprise world.

This man is a hard core Ideologue of more than 20 years that has used his accidental good fortune of a financial crisis and societal war fatigue (of a war we're winning, by the way) to parlay into quite possibly the worst form of left wing drift ever seen in the history of the great USA.

Freaking scary.

What has failed in Canada? The healthcare? A progressive income tax?

He's trying to help America...If there was no need for it then he wouldn't be where he is advocating it. He's suggesting making the government more responsible for the welfare of the citizens.

The only way we can 'win' the war in Iraq is to get out and let it run itself. Staying there forever is losing just as much as pulling out in the next week would be.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Mortui

[Pliny]

If socialism is a process, it can be stopped during that process, at a point where there cease to be more benefits from furthering the process. Since the US has taken some of the benefits from a socialist society, why shouldn't we take the rest? The US has plenty of safeguards against it becoming a totalitarian state, and I have faith that it can see what is best for itself.

Yes, the United States was born out of resistance to the government of Britain, but it turned around and did to itself many of the same things Britain was doing. The difference was that the US got to choose it (but not really, because it didn't even choose revolution for itself in the first place-it was forced into it by the Continental Congress which didn't actually have the right to declare independence for the colonies). I do not ask anyone to cease resisting a tyrannical and overbearing government. I ask people to allow the The United States Constitution was written because a weak government proved not to work(the Articles of Confederation). The Constitution wasn't even supposed to be written. The Confederation Congress was supposed to be revising the Articles, not writing a new document. Basically, the United States is founded on the idea of big government(federalism) and made for the benefit of the people. The purpose of government is to help the people.

I say again, having some socialist aspects in your government doesn't make it entirely socialist, it makes it innovative and gives it a better chance of 'getting it right'.

Yes, it can be stopped. But constant vigilance is necessary.

The purpose of government is to protect the people not help them. they should be able to help themselves as a society. When government is "helping" individuals or special interests it becomes tyrant.

There must be a healthy respect for government. Once it's authority has been centralized and power concentrated in the hands of a few it is never the men of government that create the problems in society but instead the system of government where that power will corrupt and can be abused.

Having socialist aspects in your government places it on the road to being entirely socialist and eventual tyranny, and that is the lesson people need to forever remember about socialism in government. Socialism stripped of the powers of government, basically the ability to use force, is the basis of all organization. Within the structure of an organization is power and law but no power to use force against another except for the right of exclusion from participation. Agreement, consent and contract are the only means of accepting participation.

Because I am living in Canada I suppose that is my agreement and consent to live within it's laws and force may be used against me if I break those laws. If I disagree with them I must, as an individual either suffer under them, move or if I have the opportunity lobby to have them changed. Civil disobedience is for martyrs to a cause. If there is reason for civil disobedience there is reason to be wary of government.

Martin Luther King did not march against the white people. He marched against an unfair government. A government that had discriminatory laws. Not laws against black people but laws that favoured and granted privilege to white people. The elimination of those laws would have brought about an evolutionary, not immediate, change in attitude. Affirmative action is only another law granting privilege and is just as racist as the law it replaced. If you wish racism to disappear you have to stop government from granting favour to one group over another. Does that mean that the majority will tyrannize the minority? Now stopping tyranny is the job of government and the only lesson government should have to teach - society should otherwise be left to create a civilization. A civilization that is not created from such a flimsy thing as the whim of government.

[Pliny]

How did socialism fail in Canada?

It has failed to keep the populace informed of it's final destination and the populace has welcomed it's favour and benevolence as though it were the source and manufacturer of it. The veneer that it is the provider of all that is good obfuscates the creeping tyranny necessary to sustain that image.

[Oleg Bach]

Obama does not want to redistribute wealth - Poor blacks and whites don't have any money ----so there is nothing to distribute among them - But those that are actually industrous who make a few hundrend thousand a year will have their wealth re-distributed - to those that make 20 million a year - go figure...money never never moves in a down ward motion - the law is that it move up - and the guys at the top are the law.

[GostHacked]

It has failed to keep the populace informed of it's final destination and the populace has welcomed it's favour and benevolence as though it were the source and manufacturer of it. The veneer that it is the provider of all that is good obfuscates the creeping tyranny necessary to sustain that image.

Governments like to keep secrets and really don't tell you what you really want to know. This is why politicians speak with soundbytes for the masses to consume. Little substance. Could also be that we have already reached the destination, so there is no need to inform anyone. That withholding of information is how tyranny starts. All governments are guilty of this. And they do this to sustain any image they want. No country is immune from it.

[Oleg Bach]

Governments like to keep secrets and really don't tell you what you really want to know. This is why politicians speak with soundbytes for the masses to consume. Little substance. Could also be that we have already reached the destination, so there is no need to inform anyone. That withholding of information is how tyranny starts. All governments are guilty of this. And they do this to sustain any image they want. No country is immune from it.

Tyranny does not effect the intelligent and brave - infact tyranny respects it. Seeing that all tyrants are bullies of limited intelligence - just soothe the savage beast and tell it that it's pretty - that should calm it for a while - evil is the lack of true intelligence and goodness - evil is less than the base animal.

[Mortui]

Tyranny does not effect the intelligent and brave - infact tyranny respects it. Seeing that all tyrants are bullies of limited intelligence - just soothe the savage beast and tell it that it's pretty - that should calm it for a while - evil is the lack of true intelligence and goodness - evil is less than the base animal.

Tyranny affects everyone...and it respects no one. Tyrants are generally smarter than others, and have the ability to manipulate the average person. Hitler was definitely NOT of limited intelligence. Evil is not the lack of intelligence. Evil is the possession of knowledge that what you're doing is wrong and doing it anyway.

[Oleg Bach]

Tyranny affects everyone...and it respects no one. Tyrants are generally smarter than others, and have the ability to manipulate the average person. Hitler was definitely NOT of limited intelligence. Evil is not the lack of intelligence. Evil is the possession of knowledge that what you're doing is wrong and doing it anyway.

Tyrants rule though spiritual and intellectual genocidal attrition..eg - Stalin wanted to be the smartest guy on the block - so he killed the intelligensia....even a strong ape once he as rallied the stupified masses - can take over a system...beware - tyrants are not smart - just cruel.

[Mortui]

Yes, it can be stopped. But constant vigilance is necessary.

The purpose of government is to protect the people not help them. they should be able to help themselves as a society. When government is "helping" individuals or special interests it becomes tyrant.

There must be a healthy respect for government. Once it's authority has been centralized and power concentrated in the hands of a few it is never the men of government that create the problems in society but instead the system of government where that power will corrupt and can be abused.

Having socialist aspects in your government places it on the road to being entirely socialist and eventual tyranny, and that is the lesson people need to forever remember about socialism in government. Socialism stripped of the powers of government, basically the ability to use force, is the basis of all organization. Within the structure of an organization is power and law but no power to use force against another except for the right of exclusion from participation. Agreement, consent and contract are the only means of accepting participation.

Because I am living in Canada I suppose that is my agreement and consent to live within it's laws and force may be used against me if I break those laws. If I disagree with them I must, as an individual either suffer under them, move or if I have the opportunity lobby to have them changed. Civil disobedience is for martyrs to a cause. If there is reason for civil disobedience there is reason to be wary of government.

Martin Luther King did not march against the white people. He marched against an unfair government. A government that had discriminatory laws. Not laws against black people but laws that favoured and granted privilege to white people. The elimination of those laws would have brought about an evolutionary, not immediate, change in attitude. Affirmative action is only another law granting privilege and is just as racist as the law it replaced. If you wish racism to disappear you have to stop government from granting favour to one group over another. Does that mean that the majority will tyrannize the minority? Now stopping tyranny is the job of government and the only lesson government should have to teach - society should otherwise be left to create a civilization. A civilization that is not created from such a flimsy thing as the whim of government.

The fact that you see that it is a socialist step proves that you are being vigilant. No one is saying to let the US slide into a completely socialist state.

The government is a tool of the people. Made by the people, of the people, for the people. It reflects society. When you use the government to help the citizens of a country it is not tyranny, it is using a tool available to get what needs to be done done.

If power being in the hands of a few causes a corrupt government, why isn't the US corrupt? There will be no less distribution of power, there will still be three branches of government. The government isn't changing its system of power. It is using the money it gets from its people to help its people.

Canada is more socialist than the United States. How can you say that it is so bad for the US to have some socialist aspects when it is working fine in Canada?

Civil disobedience is a tool to keep government in check. It is one of the many things that keeps the US govenment from becoming a tyranny. Martin Luther King marched against unfair laws. He did NOT march against the US government. The federal government actually supported him for the most part, it was state governements that opposedhim. The laws were created by the people, not by the government. The people of the United States have a say in every law that is in place. That is democracy. That's why we vote. The people at that time were racist. They felt that blacks were less than them. The laws, unlike what you seem to think, were in fact, intended to limit blacks. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS NOT RACIST. It is the exact OPPOSITE. The government wasn't granting favor to one group over another, it was promoting equality. It is an ideology that everyone in America should recieve equal rights. It is an example of where the minority in America has fought for, and recieved, equality in society.

Civilizations lead to society. Society leads to government. That's why the early government in the New England area was a theocracy. Society was Puritan.

[Mortui]

Tyrants rule though spiritual and intellectual genocidal attrition..eg - Stalin wanted to be the smartest guy on the block - so he killed the intelligensia....even a strong ape once he as rallied the stupified masses - can take over a system...beware - tyrants are not smart - just cruel.

Adolf Hitler was a genius-misguided, but a genius nevertheless. Napolean Bonaparte was a genius. He was also a tyrant. Lenin-the person that led communism to the forefront in Russia during the revolution was a genius. Stalin was smart. He knew what he was doing, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to take control of the communist party. He knew how to retain power. Purely being cruel is actually one of the best ways to lose your power. History shows that a majority of dictators are intelligent-maybe not booksmart, but streetsmart.

Give me an example of a tyrant that ruled only through cruelty.