The fact is that ALL taxation is a form of wealth redistribution. The government takes money from individuals and spends it. Generally the people that the wealth is redistributed TO are the same ones who it is redistributed FROM --- it comes back in the form of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police services, national defense, etc. Labeling this kind of redistribution as "socialist" or "Marxist" is stupid and does not argue the issue on its merits.

I think that all but a very small percentage of people would agree that we need most of these kinds of services to be provided by the government, and the governemnt needs to raise taxes in order to pay for these services. And most people, but not all, would agree that the tax code needs to be progressive in some way so that people with more money pay more money than those who have no money, because if we are all reduced to the common denominator of paying only what the poor can afford, we won't have enough money to run the government and have roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, police services, national defense, etc.

The legitimate questions are related to how many additional services, such as health care, retirement security, and education assistance, should the government provide over and above the bare minimum of running the government? How much money should the government collect in taxes to pay for the services it provides? How should the progressive tax code be structured so that one income group pays more or less than another group?

Those are all legitimate quetsions, but they are mostly about a matter of degree, not about extreme changes in our social, political and economic systems, and they should be argued without labeling. This idea that altering the progressive tax code so that the poor pay less in taxes than the wealthy, and altering the services that the governemnt provides so that it provides more healthcare and educational services is "Socialist" or "Marxist" is stupid.

These words have meaning, and they should not be cheapened by using them as labels for political purposes. When you call someone who protests a politcal rally a "terrorist" or someone who volunteers a few hours at the homeless shelter a "hero," you debase those words, and pretty soon "terrorist" and "hero" don't mean very much. Same with "Socialist" or "Marxist." We need those words to mean what they mean. If conservatives insists on calling a progressive tax code and increased healthcare services "Marxist," and Obama is able to implement them, and everything turns out OK, pretty soon you are going to have people saying, "Hey, this Marxism is great!" And I don't think that is what we want.
dragonrider Reviewed by dragonrider 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