Marxist movement

"Marxism in America" Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin Video |

From the POTUS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&annotation_id=annotation_272656&f
eature=iv
The phrase "over my dead body" comes to mind.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Thoughts?

 

I couldn't make it all the way through it. I'm probably in the minority here, but here's what I think. Wealth in America needs to be redistributed. Capitalism relies upon the fundamental morality and ethics of those that operate within the market. When these are lacking, and massive portions of the economy are able to be funneled off by individuals or conglomerates, then regulation and intervention is necessary.

I'm no economist. My level of knowledge on sociopolitical systems is very shallow. But I do know right from wrong. I'm ok with some having more than others, and with the concept of "to the victor go the spoils," within boundaries. But we are so far removed, both in this country and internationally, from any semblance of fairness and humanity that it sickens me.

People point the finger at socialism, Marxism, communism, (insert your polarizing concept here), Islam, etc. to defend their status quo and to rile up a particular demographic. It's not a new concept. This smacks of more generic fear mongering. For who? I'm too tired to care.

I am part of the target demographic, and I am sick of being targeted.

No offense Lost.Monkey. I'm just not a fan.

 

The video is spot-on. There has been a push to turn the United States into a Marxist (Socialist) nation for many years. The implementation of Social Security is probably the biggest push ever in this direction. If the American people had a choice of abolishing Social Security or abiding by the Constitution, they would abolish the Constitution in favor of the government taking care of them. Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for Social Security, Socialism or Marxism. It is a GREAT video!

The American people will get exactly what they want: They will trade away their freedoms to have the government take care of them.

 

I didn't realize we had a capitalist society. Corporate welfare, bank bailouts, government control of entire industries, bloated defense spending, fraud-ridden entitlement programs, government sponsored outsourcing, horrendous deficit spending, government payrolls exceeding private payrolls, nearly half the country pays no federal income tax, home loans to everyone even if you can't pay, student loans for $100k sports management degrees; I think we're well on our way away from capitalism. But of course these things are going to happen. When you give an incentive for carelessness, that's exactly what you're going to get. This is the only thing bipartisan in Washington: fraud, waste, and abuse...

Sorry for the gloomy tone, MC.

 

What is gloomy about giving your opinion Jaer? No need to be sorry. Abner

 

Thanks Abner. I just didn't want Maniac Craniac to think I'm going doomsday; I'm not trying to, but it sure sounds like it.

 

Our MC? Or MC Hammer? He he he - just kidding MC.


Abner

 

Either I'm incredibly dense, or the inside jokes are escaping me.

I'm leaning towards the former.

 

I agree completely with the video, so I'm obviously the most conservative person in this thread. I never thought I'd see the day when Americans agreed that the government should "seize" wealth (private property) and give it to non-owners. I'm frankly appalled, horrified and dismayed.

 

Personally, I'm offended by the whole concept of wealth distribution. True, capitalism isn't ideal, but it does represent (IMHO) a system that leaves an individual to their own devices.

I choose my career path, I choose my investments, I choose my educational strategy. Just because there are losers in this system doesn't mean we need to equalize.

If you offer more and more handouts to the losers, it completely sabotages the whole concept of capitalism and freedom. If you don't like the fact that you're hungry, or poor, then go do something about it. Invent something, go to school, start a business. Without risk, there cannot be reward. All the government seems to be trying to do is level-out the risk, and ultimately usurp and individual's sense of independance.

Reagan (not that I'm a fan of everything he did) always appealed to everyone's "inner entreprenuer", and encouraged all to take risks in trying to better one's own situation. With socialism (or marxism), we ALL lose, instead of 10%. What's worse, we hand over so much power to the government that we sacrifice the CHOICE to take a risk.

Besides, when has the gov-ment managed anything in this country with any efficiency? Without a sharp eye on the bottom line (read: taxpayer money), these jerks push through EVERY idiot initiative that crosses their desk, until they find themselves bogged down by the very system the create (I call it "administratium").

A perfect example of this is my workplace. 20 years ago, there were 47 contractors (private, employee-owned company) and 3 silly-servants. Fast forward to present day, and there are 47 contractors, and 57 silly-servants, with NO INCREASE in productivity. That's right, +53 on manpower financed via taxpayer, with no increase in output. I can be debated (and often is) that the additional silly-servants actually hinder the work of the contractors in the fact that the more stakeholders in a program there are, the harder it is to come to a consensus on approach. Worse yet, these SS don't actually do any work, they just provide "oversight".

As to the comment about bail-outs above, just know that IS redistribution in it's purest form. What the gov-ment should have done is let those banks and firms eat each other, with the most solvent of the losers emerging as the winner. I see banks as no different than individuals; you made a bad investment, you can't pay your bills, time to declare bankruptcy and move on. This all follows a natural circle of life in which "survival of the fittest" ensures the strongest companies (the ones that didn't take on as much risk as the losers) emerge.

Outsourcing labor is a mistake in the long run, and is the only area I feel the goverment should be stepping in. Sure, we'll all pay for it in higher prices for goods, but it beats higher taxes in paying all of the unemployed. At least with the higher priced goods, I have the choice of what to buy.

We keep looking to the government for safegards, and that is idiotic. We live in a system in which we can rely on ourselves, who can look after ME better than ME? Surely not the government!

A thousand pardons for my scatter-brained rant (and bad spelling), but I really needed to vent. I feel a little better now.

 

Ay que Colonel Sanders! He he he.


Abner

 

We currently have countries that have such mentality. Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, North Korea... And, they are such wonderful countries, they give the distribution of wealth a new meaning, these countries have perfected such actions, and look at the end result. Is this the way we want the U.S to look? Then by all means we should move to one of these countries. I want the government off my life, once you invite government in, well then you are royally screwed. I was born in one of these communist countries, and I can tell you, growing up is not a fun experience under a communist regime. I was fortunate enough that my parents came to the US when I was 9 yrs old.

 

you leave a lot of countries out of that list
canada and all of western europe have socialized medicine
there's a complete difference from having the government totally in control of all businesses and having the government making sure all (even the poorest) are provided for

as a kid I was given free and discounted lunches at a public school : both examples of distribution of wealth
I got free lunches while other kids had to pay for it.
Was I glad that I was poor ? No. Was I happy to eat. Damn right.
I also went to public school and had my education paid for by other people's taxes. Some of those people who had no kids of their own, yet they partially paid for my education. There's distribution of wealth.

 

Ah! Well put James. My wife and I have no children, but we have absolutely no problem paying taxes for other peoples kids to get an education. As far as providing school lunches, hell yes. Tax me extra. Why do I have no problem with this? It is the right thing to do. Further, paying taxes is the only way to keep up on massive projects like infrastructure for example , as individuals could not or would not do it.

As far as having the wealthy pay more, I agree with Warren Buffet:

Billionaires Buffett and Gates: Tax Us More! - ABC News

Here is a central quote:

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.

I believe recently Buffet and Gates had a petition signed by them and twenty other billionaires imploring Obama to raise taxes on the ultra wealthy. I do think Obama should raise taxes on those making from 500 - 700k and above, not the $250,000.00 figure that the Dems keep pushing for. I think the Republicans (now the majority) would still resist it, but he might be able to squeek enough votes through.

So what am I saying now, and have been saying for years? The trickle down theory is a failed experiment. If paying CEO's grotesque amounts of money and perks to drive companies into the ground (not always of course), while laying off 30,000 workers is someones idea of trickle down, I just don't get it. But that's just me.

Abner