TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Smells Like Socialist Spirit
Pages (8): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »

Smells Like Socialist Spirit

If people thought Joe the Plumber was some kind of stumble for Barack Obama, a rediscovered interview from 2001 should dispel any doubts about Barack Obama�s redistributionism. Seven years ago, Obama told Chicago Public Radio that the Warren Court was too conservative and missed its opportunity to redistribute wealth on a much grander scale. In fact, Obama wanted them to break the Constitution and reorder American society far outside of what the founders intended.



People have assumed that Obama merely offered a rhetorical stumble, and Obama and Joe Biden have strenuously attacked anyone that claimed he intended to bring about radical socialist change. This sounds very much like socialism and radical change, and there is no mistaking the context of this statement. While Obama recognizes in this passage that the judiciary doesn�t have the �structure� to make radical changes to the Constitution, he doesn�t sound at all happy about it.
Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates. He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement. That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama�s vision.

quote:

In Obama�s America, we�ll finally be able to break free of the �constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution� � and in so doing, achieve �social justice� through �redistributive change.� Well then, fine. But this is not the America I knew

The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx�s classic philosophy of �from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs�. That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.

One more clarifying thought is in order. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a �charter of negative liberties�. That�s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly. Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that�s radical change you�d better believe in, or else.

with the lights out, it's less dangerous. Here we are now, entertain us. I feel stupid, and contagious. Here we are now, entertain us. A mulatto, an albino, a mosquito, my libido, yeah.

Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss If people thought Joe the Plumber was some kind of stumble for Barack Obama, a rediscovered interview from 2001 should dispel any doubts about Barack Obama�s redistributionism. Seven years ago, Obama told Chicago Public Radio that the Warren Court was too conservative and missed its opportunity to redistribute wealth on a much grander scale. In fact, Obama wanted them to break the Constitution and reorder American society far outside of what the founders intended.

What exactly is wrong about redistributing wealth to create a more fair society where opportunity exists for everyone, not just for those that can afford it?

quote:

Instead, Obama sees community organizing as the essential path to move from a Constitution of personal liberties to a Constitution of federal mandates. He wants a new governing document that essentially forces both the federal and state governments to redistribute wealth, and he sees that as the natural outcome of the civil rights movement. That certainly smells of socialism on a far grander scale than ever attempted in the US, with the New Deal and Great Societies looking like pale imitations of Obama�s vision.

And a �500b bailout to the banks from the Republicans?! That the hell was that then?! Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious you have no idea what "socialism" means and you're merely using the term as an insult. You don't even know what redistribution means or why it's supposed to be a bad thing!

quote:

That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.

Marxism maybe, but if you think Obama is a Marxist you're quite frankly an idiot. Attempts to create Marxist societies in the past may have failed, but some of the most successful countries in the world are so because of their socialist policies. Look at Britain's National Health Service, the envy of most of the world. We all pay a proportion of what we earn so that every person in this country, from tramps on the street to CEOs have the right to free health care - in my country that is our right. What about the Scandinavian countries (that in the other thread were accused of being Marxist countries)? They offer the best living standards in the world, practically no poverty whatsoever compared to America

Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What exactly is wrong about redistributing wealth to create a more fair society where opportunity exists for everyone, not just for those that can afford it?

Who and why does someone get to say what is and is not "fair" provided nothing has been achieved illegally or out of the bounds of the regulations in place?

quote:

And a �500b bailout to the banks from the Republicans?! That the hell was that then?!

It was a bipartisan bill, George. A bipartisan bill that nobody likes. Kindly rephrase your critique.

the people we elect to represent us get to chose what is fair on our behalf... or at least that is how it is supposed to work in theory


If the people want to elect a house, senate, and executive who thinks that giving a tax break to the lower class and increasing taxes at the upper end is fair then that is what is fair

quote:

Originally posted by Zild the people we elect to represent us get to chose what is fair on our behalf... or at least that is how it is supposed to work in theory

How what is supposed to work? That's not what I was taught, and I don't believe the Constitution says that anywhere.

quote:

If the people want to elect a house, senate, and executive who thinks that giving a tax break to the lower class and increasing taxes at the upper end is fair then that is what is fair

That is absurd! You're basically saying the definition of fair is simply what some elected official says it is with no burden of proof or standard of judgement. If they say it's fair, then by definition, it is fair. THAT IS SCARY.

The constitution is just a piece of paper that isn't worth much anymore as far as I'm concerned. It has been gutted and ripped to shreds over the last decade. I agree that taxes aren't in the Constitution.

Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Who and why does someone get to say what is and is not "fair" provided nothing has been achieved illegally or out of the bounds of the regulations in place?

Because people born into money have an unfair advantage over those not born into money, even somebody like you can't possibly be pig headed enough to deny that?! Fairness means equal opportunities for all...

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka How what is supposed to work? That's not what I was taught, and I don't believe the Constitution says that anywhere.

Who cares what the constitution says?! What is it supposed to be some kind of religious document or summat?! Jesus! It's merely the law written down over 200 years ago! How can it still be relevant to the modern world! What a complete and utter joke!

But in order to help you decipher what Zild just told you, in a democracy, the people choose the people they want to elect them based on what vision those people have. If the people want a right wing nut job then they have the right to choose one to represent them. If they want radical socialist changes to society to even things up a bit, that is also their right

quote:

That is absurd! You're basically saying the definition of fair is simply what some elected official says it is with no burden of proof or standard of judgement. If they say it's fair, then by definition, it is fair. THAT IS SCARY.

What do you define as "fair"?

N

quote:

Originally posted by Zild The constitution is just a piece of paper that isn't worth much anymore as far as I'm concerned. It has been gutted and ripped to shreds over the last decade. I agree that taxes aren't in the Constitution.

Read -

Article I; section 2, paragraph 3
Article I; section 8
Article I; section 9

Amendment XVI

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...e.html#articlei

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Because people born into money have an unfair advantage over those not born into money, even somebody like you can't possibly be pig headed enough to deny that?! Fairness means equal opportunities for all...

So money is the scale by which we determine what defines fairness? What if I have more friends than you--is that unfair? What if I have a stronger sense of ethics and honor than you--is that unfair? Seems to me you just have a case of money envy.

Furthermore, where does it say that the role of government is to make sure that these "unfair" injustices 1) don't take place and 2) are promptly corrected when they do occur? Isn't that just life, George? Can't you just agree that not everyone is exactly the same and that there will always be haves and have nots in the world? It is not the duty and responsibility of government to redistribute wealth to create some Brave New World dystopia. Equality of opportunity--not equality of outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Who cares what the constitution says?! What is it supposed to be some kind of religious document or summat?! Jesus! It's merely the law written down over 200 years ago! How can it still be relevant to the modern world! What a complete and utter joke!

Well, seeing it is the bedrock foundation from which the U.S. system of government was created, I tend to think it matters a great deal. Being old doesn't make something irrelevant. It is a living document that is modified all the time. It is more than "the law." Apparently your understanding of it is not as deep as you seem to think.

quote:

But in order to help you decipher what Zild just told you, in a democracy, the people choose the people they want to elect them based on what vision those people have. If the people want a right wing nut job then they have the right to choose one to represent them. If they want radical socialist changes to society to even things up a bit, that is also their right

But does that somehow empower them with the divine right of being the official arbiter of fairness? Isn't that a job that, at best, is better left to the courts and a jury of ones peers?

quote:

What do you define as "fair"?

It doesn't even fucking matter, that's the point. Fair is some arbitrary standard that is subjective and has no place in black/white policy decisions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Because people born into money have an unfair advantage over those not born into money, even somebody like you can't possibly be pig headed enough to deny that?! Fairness means equal opportunities for all...

what about people not born into money, but those who have become very succesful by working hard?

I agree that inherited wealth should be taxed heavily. I'm a little hesitant to agree that earned income should be taxed too heavily to re-distribute wealth. I agree though that basic human needs should be government funded (i.e., health care, education up to college, retirement benefits). However, I think that can be accomplished by reducing spending on other government programs (e.g., the huge 600 billion military budget). Taxing the shit out of inherited wealth would also go a long way. To escape that tax, people have the option to contribute the wealth to any domestic charity of their choice, save charities promoting religious education, or that person can just spend the money before they die. In that way, the government isn't making any choices for you. If you can't spend the money before you die, that is a sign that you have more money than you need. In that sense, the person is deciding for the government what is too much money.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So money is the scale by which we determine what defines fairness? What if I have more friends than you--is that unfair? What if I have a stronger sense of ethics and honor than you--is that unfair? Seems to me you just have a case of money envy.

In our societies the amount of money available to you equals the amount of opportunities open to you. I don't agree that everyone should have the same amount of money, nor necessarily that they should have the same opportunities as everyone. What I do believe is that there are certain minimum services that should be available to everyone, no matter what their personal circumstances, to ensure that, through their own hard work, they can make the most out of their lives. That includes, amongst others, free eduction up to university, free health etc etc

quote:

Furthermore, where does it say that the role of government

Where does "it" say the role of the government is anything?

And what the fuck is "it" anyway?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 what about people not born into money, but those who have become very succesful by working hard?

What exactly have they got to worry about in life then?

George,

If you look at most of the successful people throughout the world, liberal or conservative, it is not because they had more money to pursue greater things, but because they had the working ethics and the passion for achieving a certain goal. Many people think that money fixes everything, but in fact, it destroys it if it is not used correctly. Giving a poor man more money doesn't help him, because in most cases, he is poor for the decisions that he constantly made throughout his life. The worst thing you can do for a poor man is give him money.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 N Read - Article I; section 2, paragraph 3 Article I; section 8 Article I; section 9 Amendment XVI http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitu...e.html#articlei

Hey so it is in there! Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano George, If you look at most of the successful people throughout the world, liberal or conservative, it is not because they had more money to pursue greater things, but because they had the working ethics and the passion for achieving a certain goal. Many people think that money fixes everything, but in fact, it destroys it if it is not used correctly. Giving a poor man more money doesn't help him, because in most cases, he is poor for the decisions that he constantly made throughout his life. The worst thing you can do for a poor man is give him money.

What a load of fucking bollocks

That doesn't even deserve an answer

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What exactly have they got to worry about in life then?

i'm just wondering how their wealth should be taxed. Should their wealth be subject to re-distribution? Like i said, i agree with you that we should re-distributing accumulated wealth. However, i hesitate to say we should re-distribute earned income more than the burden they should bear to support the minimum necessary government programs (i.e., health care, education, etc...). I guess my policy is that if you earn it, you should keep as much as possible, except to support the minimum level of government programs to ensure the basic human needs of all citizens.

quote:

Originally posted by Zild Hey so it is in there! Thanks.

I wouldn't have a job if it wasn't.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley What a load of fucking bollocks That doesn't even deserve an answer

This clearly shows your ignorance towards the subject of wealth and how you view the system of it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Smells Like Socialist Spirit

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i'm just wondering how their wealth should be taxed. Should their wealth be subject to re-distribution? Like i said, i agree with you that we should re-distributing accumulated wealth. However, i hesitate to say we should re-distribute earned income more than the burden they should bear to support the minimum necessary government programs (i.e., health care, education, etc...). I guess my policy is that if you earn it, you should keep as much as possible, except to support the minimum level of government programs to ensure the basic human needs of all citizens.

How they should be taxed is equal to their wealth. If they have worked their socks off and become very well off, then they should pay more than those working on minimum wage. It is not called "redistribution" in any other country other than the one trying to convince the electorate that one candidate will turn America into the USSR! It is accepted in most countries as the fairest way to ensure the minimum essential government services you refer to above. The problem in America is that you DON'T have what most would consider the essential minimum services! Poor people in America get substandard health care (if any at all) and substandard levels of education. In my country, everyone is entitled to the same level of health care no matter that their wealth. All education has to adhere to minimum standards and must be available for free. Is Britain a Marxist (or even socialist) country? No. It's one of the most right wing economic countries is Europe!

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano This clearly shows your ignorance towards the subject of wealth and how you view the system of it.

No it shows my ignorance the drivel that just left your mouth

Where did the myth that if you work your ass off you will become rich? Because I know a lot of low income families who work their ass off to barely scrape by, and I do think they could use a tax break and a few social programs like health care, school, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedano George, If you look at most of the successful people throughout the world, liberal or conservative, it is not because they had more money to pursue greater things, but because they had the working ethics and the passion for achieving a certain goal. Many people think that money fixes everything, but in fact, it destroys it if it is not used correctly. Giving a poor man more money doesn't help him, because in most cases, he is poor for the decisions that he constantly made throughout his life. The worst thing you can do for a poor man is give him money.

how did george bush become president of the US? not from his own hard work; he inherited daddy's prestige, wealth, and connections. Most succesful people throughout the world become succesful because the receive a huge head start from daddy (i.e., being accepted to harvard because pops is an alumni, receiving seed money from daddy's connection, etc...). A $50 million trust account isn't the asset that usually thrusts people to the top, it's the other benefits from having succesful parents (like i said before, connections, schools, etc...). The reason people who rise up from the lower middle class to become fabulously wealthy are celebrated is because it is not a common feat.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.