Quote Originally Posted by dragonrider
The entire Marxist system is not captured in the statemnt, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." That is more of a philosophical statement, not a statement of the actual mechanism of Marxism, which is the thing the people really have a problem with. Even if Obama had flat out said the same exact words, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs," which of course he DID NOT, it wouldn't necessarily mean he is a Marxist, because those words do not capture what a Marxist is.

Marxism is a system of COLLECTIVELY OWNING the means of production so that all those in the collective organization share in the benefits of production equitably --- Marxism is NOT a capitalist system with a progressive tax structure, like what we have now and like what Obama advocates. The two are completely different. We have had a progressive tax structure for how long? 70 or 80 years? Have we been a Marxist country for all that time? If so, then what is the difference? Why label it now? The answer is of course we are NOT a Marxist country, because the government does not nationalize our industries, and nothing Obama has said leads me to believe he intends to do so. (If you want industry to be nationalized, you need George Bush for that!)

Also, when Obama said he thinks it is better when we "spread the wealth around," he was NOT talking about taxing one group in order to spread the wealth to another group. The "spread the wealth around" quote was part of his discussion with Joe the Plumber. And his point to Joe was that people in the lower income brackets are so squeezed that they do not have the money to spend. This economy is driven by spending, so when the spenders have no money, the entire economy suffers. The point about "spreading the wealth" was NOT that a progressive tax structure that allows lower income people to keep more of their money would be the actual mechanism of "spreading the wealth." The point was that if lower income people have enough money to spend, then the economy will be stronger, and we will all be better off --- it's the SPENDING that spreads the wealth around, not the taxation.

George Bush's rationale for his tax cuts for the wealthy was that if the wealthy have more money, then they will invest it, and investment will drive the economy in ways that benefit everyone, even the lower incomes. It's the trickle-down theory --- and it is its own form of "spread the wealth" philospohy. It is rooted in the idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game, and by putting money in certain places, like in the hands of people who will invest it, it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

Obama's plan for a more progressive tax structure is rooted in the same idea that the economy is not a zero-sum game. The difference is that a more progressive tax plan puts the money in the hands of people who are more likely to SPEND it rather than people who are more likely to INVEST it. It is more of a trickle-up theory that if people have money to spend it actually creates more wealth and economic activity and the "rising tide raises all boats."

We have tried the one idea for eight years, and it has not worked so well. So now we are going to try the other idea.
As you can probably tell lately I really don't care. So I'm ignoring your reply and just responding with what I want.

All I have to say is this. I've asked people throughout multiple threads if the questions being posed are valid. Many people's answer have pretty much been yes but they add an exception to their reply which generally states that it was asked in an inappropriate way or it was cast out there to make Obama look bad.

So my question to everyone is this.. if people do agree it's a worthy question in and of itself, then why does everyone defend him. A question is a question is a question. The agenda behind the question does not change the meaning of the question.

So if people agree that it's a valid question then why is it such blasphemy to ask it?

My problem is that no one is allowed to ask Obama a question if his answer might make him look bad. I feel that is absolutely wrong and the media is doing a piss poor job of getting clear answers out of him whether it be about his questionable associations or what philosophies he follows that would effect his use of the executive office.

You may be satisfied with letting things slide but frankly I'm not.
daihashi Reviewed by daihashi on . Obama Campaign Payback At TV Station The Orlando Sentinel is reporting that the Obama campaign has told station WFTV-Channel 9 not to expect any more interviews until after the election. According to a blog on the paper's Web site, this stems from a satellite interview the Orlando station's Barbara West conducted with Joe Biden on Thursday. West asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee to defend whether the ticket's policies were "Marxist" and whether Biden's comments about Obama being "tested" early in his Rating: 5