Our Marxist Wizard of Oz

Trafficking in fringe right wing groups these days? lmfao. You are clearly more and more at home with who you really are. Excellent. lol

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the...-barack-obama/
In today’s Washington Post, E.J. Dionne returns to a familiar theme, the extent to which Republican, specifically hard-core conservative, opposition to President Obama manifests itself as personal hatred and outright demonization:
They say that President Obama is a Muslim, but if he isn’t, he’s a secularist who is waging war on religion. On some days he’s a Nazi, but on most others he’s merely a socialist. His especially creative opponents see him as having a “Kenyan anti-colonial worldview,” while the less adventurous say that he’s an elitist who spent too much time in Cambridge, Hyde Park and other excessively academic precincts.
Whatever our president is, he is never allowed to be a garden-variety American who plays basketball and golf, has a remarkably old-fashioned family life and, in the manner we regularly recommend to our kids, got ahead by getting a good education.
Please forgive this outburst. It’s simply astonishing that a man in his fourth year as our president continues to be the object of the most extraordinary paranoid fantasies. A significant part of his opposition still cannot accept that Obama is a rather moderate politician quite conventional in his tastes and his interests. And now that the economy is improving, short-circuiting easy criticisms, Obama’s adversaries are reheating all the old tropes and cliches and slanders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Nothing diversionary about it. Dont you read how Fox news tied Saul Alinsky to Marxism and Obama to Alinsky. I knew you would rather avoid it. Par for the course.

Do yourself a favor and educate yourself.

---

Nope. Didn't read that Fox News tied Saul Alinsky to Marxism and Obama to Alinsky. There are plenty of other considerations that point to Obama adopting a Marxist point of view. Haven't you read ANYTHING? There are 6 pages of articles here.

Yet many in the anti-Obama camp just can’t stop themselves from playing on fears that electing a man who defies old stereotypes was a terrible mistake. Thus did the Rev. Franklin Graham assert Tuesday on MSNBC not only that Muslims regard Obama as “a son of Islam” (because his father was Muslim) but also that “under President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries.” Graham slightly softened his comments on CNN Wednesday, but it remains troubling that he chose to turn a legitimate concern about the persecution of Christians into a slander.
This is a phenomenon that we’ve all been witness to ever since President Obama was elected, if not before then. It started with the whispered assertion by some that the President was not actually born in the United States, or that he was somehow ineligible to be President due to something written by a Swiss legal scholar in a book that was not even available in the United States until several years after the Constitution had been drafted. While many on the right would deny that this was ever a mainstream belief, the reality is that it was also not something that prominent spokespersons on the right sought to discourage or reject until it became too much of an embarrassment to the movement. Other rumors spread about the President have included the assertion that he is a “secret Muslim,” that he secretly traveled to Pakistan during a time when it was impossible for Americans to get a visa to visit the country, and that his very Presidency is part of some vast conspiracy to undermine the United States.
During the 2008 campaign itself, we saw the full force of conservative talk radio, and on more than a few occasions, the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, attack claim that then-Senator Obama was a socialist with ties to radical preachers and 1960s radicals. The campaign didn’t work, of course, and in fact it became clear by October 2008 that the more conservatives attacked Obama, the worse the Republicans did in the polls. By the time it was over the GOP had suffered its biggest loss to a non-incumbent Democrat since 1992. One would have thought that this would have led to a period of introspection on the right, and perhaps the realization on the right that trying to scare the crap out of people was not really an effective strategy. By the time of President Obama’s Inauguration, though, it seemed like the demonization meme had won out, as exemplified most fully in Rush Limbaugh’s statement that he hoped the President failed. When some Republicans spoke up to disagree with what Limbaugh was saying, pointing out for example that rooting for the President to fail is akin to rooting for the nation to fail, they found themselves quickly denounced amid the ever-increasing din of anti-Obama fervor. The “Obama as evil” rhetoric increased, of course, after the birth of the Tea Party movement, which often found itself being spoken for by extremist elements who would question the President’s religious faith, his place of birth, and even whether he had actually graduated from Columbia University.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Trafficking in fringe right wing groups these days? lmfao. You are clearly more and more at home with who you really are. Excellent. lol

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the...-barack-obama/
In today’s Washington Post, E.J. Dionne returns to a familiar theme, the extent to which Republican, specifically hard-core conservative, opposition to President Obama manifests itself as personal hatred and outright demonization:
They say that President Obama is a Muslim, but if he isn’t, he’s a secularist who is waging war on religion. On some days he’s a Nazi, but on most others he’s merely a socialist. His especially creative opponents see him as having a “Kenyan anti-colonial worldview,” while the less adventurous say that he’s an elitist who spent too much time in Cambridge, Hyde Park and other excessively academic precincts.
Whatever our president is, he is never allowed to be a garden-variety American who plays basketball and golf, has a remarkably old-fashioned family life and, in the manner we regularly recommend to our kids, got ahead by getting a good education.
Please forgive this outburst. It’s simply astonishing that a man in his fourth year as our president continues to be the object of the most extraordinary paranoid fantasies. A significant part of his opposition still cannot accept that Obama is a rather moderate politician quite conventional in his tastes and his interests. And now that the economy is improvineg, short-circuiting easy criticisms, Obama’s adversaries are reheating all the old tropes and cliches and slanders.

---

Studying our president's economic and societal beliefs is not extreme right wing at all. You are the one posting the extreme right wing stuff above.

You have to admit that Obama has indeed expanded government into the lives of ordinary citizens, and will continue to do so if left unabated.

Oh au contraire. It is ABSOLUTELY extreme right wing to argue that president Obama is a Marxist. Its off the charts as a matter of fact.

Part of the expansion of govt had to do with the fact that we were experiencing the 2nd worst
recession in our history. Much like Frankliin Roosevelt (i know, another Communist. lol)
stimulus was a necessary ingredient in rescuing our economy. I think we are starting to see
the positive results. Its actually very mainstream Democratic and Republican economic
theory that most economists believe in.You are just spewing rigid doctrine. You know:govt
is evil. Silly

Scott Galupo argues that this has been a central part of the opposition to the President from the beginning:
Out of political convenience or cultural distance, Beltway conservatives refuse to see this: Hardcore conservative opposition to Obama has always been cultural and theological. The pop-theological mainstream of American evangelicals has so thoroughly assimilated the ideal of American capitalism that any deviation, however modest, from it is tantamount to radical godless humanism. And, in an extension of an older intradenominational debate, conservative Catholics like Santorum deeply mistrust the ideal of “social justice” as championed by the Catholic left.
Galupo is correct, of course, and the fact that much of the policy that people like Santorum criticize the President for isn’t really any more radical than those adopted by his Republican predecessor demonstrates quite clearly that what we’re actually dealing with here isn’t a policy dispute, it’s a personal one. For better or worse, hard-core American conservatism has become invested in the idea that you can’t just disagree with President Obama, you have to hate him and assume the absolutely worst about him. That’s why you see candidates like Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney pushed to the side by these voters in favor of the Santorum’s, Gingrich’s, and Bachmann’s of the world. How this can possibly be healthy for either the GOP itself, or the nation as a whole, I really don’t understand, but if we’ve learned anything so far it’s that the hatred that Dionne and Galupo complain of is with us to stay, and that’s it’s going to be a very nasty year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

Studying our president's economic and societal beliefs is not extreme right wing at all. You are the one posting the extreme right wing stuff above.

You have to admit that Obama has indeed expanded government into the lives of ordinary citizens, and will continue to do so if left unabated.

---

You'll have to take it at face value I'm afraid. Call it what you wish.

I will call it what it is. Not what YOU wish it to be. Maybe its just simply a case of you freaking out about some of your Right wing Republican candidates.

How do you feel about Santorum, Perry, Romney, Huckabee, Gringrich,etc.?

Take them in any order.

Its been fun arguing with you. Have a good life. Should be interesting to see
how 2012 turns out. Obviously I am really hoping President Obama wins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

I will call it what it is. Not what YOU wish it to be. Maybe its just simply a case of you freaking out about some of your Right wing Republican candidates.

How do you feel about Santorum, Perry, Romney, Huckabee, Gringrich,etc.?

Take them in any order.

Its been fun arguing with you. Have a good life. Should be interesting to see
how 2012 turns out. Obviously I am really hoping President Obama wins

---

You have nothing to worry about. Obama will win a second term. My hope is that the senate and house remain split so that there is a check on Obama's leftist agenda. Then in 2016 we have a great non partisan candidate who's sole agenda is to get America back to work.

Anything can happen in 2012. I personally hope the center/Left President Obama will move from dead center toward more progressive stances. There will always be checks on whomever is in office now that Republicans have made 60 votes the number to pass legislation. Grid lock is not always a good thing for our country. So many wasted opportunities these past 2 years to really get the country going economically. So many important challenges to tackle. I sincerely hope infrastructure is tackled in a big way and soon.

Good luck and i hope you find the center again. :)

P.S. I dont have a problem understanding that govt makes mistake.
I also know that too little govt regulation or oversight lead to the 2nd
worst depression in our history. There is a balance needed.

This idea that you seem to always perpetuate that govt is evil while partaking
of many of its benefits makes you and others like you hypocrites.

And lastly, this thread started by you hasnt been about the problems of govt intervention
in the free market. You have called out President Obama as a Marxist. Its a blatant
lie and the fact that you dont have the intelligence or integrity to realize or acknowledge it
is sad. Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

Anything can happen in 2012. I hope the center/Left President Obama will move away from dead center as he is now doing in campaign mode. There will always be check on whomever is in office now that Republicans have made 60 votes the number to pass legislation. Grid lock is not always good. So many wasted opportunities these past 2 years to really get the country going economically. Sincerely hope infrastructure is tackled in a big way and soon.

Good luck and i hope you find the center again. :)

---

You too. One day you might be able to admit that government intervention into free markets sometimes has unintended negative consequences just like Dr. Paul suggested.

The opponents of Obama consider him as socialist. But, the actual socialists do not call him as socialist. This is the opinion of Billy Wharton who is the co-chairman of socialist party in USA. He says that Obama is neither a socialist nor a liberal. Obama was described by other socialists as the one who safeguards the wealth of the top five richest people of America. Democratic socialism involves protecting common man from unregulated capitalism by the rules and taxation.

Since about 50 years socialist revolutions are fighting with the capitalism in United States. The socialists were trying hard to transform this nation into socialist country. But, several Americans were not ready to accept this while Barrack Obama was supported by the young people in this regard. Obama said that everyone in the US has the right to get Health care. This opinion of Obama is also the major belief of Socialist Party in USA. The labor unions were given permission to organize without a secret ballot which was also strongly believed by the Socialist party.

The socialist party in USA visualizes the need for having right for everyone to have adequate house. Obama was observed to have suggested the ACORN (association of community organization for reform now) workers to arrange for mortgages that have enough security. This was told to be given for the sufficient number of people who were unqualified. Socialist party in USA thinks that socialism does not go hand in hand with capitalism at any time. Obama has worked in Annenberg challenge along with Bill Ayers to propose $5 million for education projects on anti-capitalism. Socialist party has supported the six months residency as the necessity for citizenship in US. Obama has also supported the illegal immigrants in Chicago standing for comprehensive immigration amendment. When socialist party wanted the US troops to immediately move away from Iraq, Obama was ready to end the war irrespective of failure or victory. Obama also supported disarmament suggested by the socialists and also encouraged ‘livable guaranteed annual income,. Obama also promised to elevate the tax burden on the rich, to balance the wealth towards the poor.

These are some of the evidences to say that Obama is a socialist.

http://www.knowswhy.com/why-is-obama-a-socialist/

CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top Fox News Executive Admits Lying On-Air About Obama
March 29, 2011 8:03 am ET by Eric Hananoki

In newly uncovered audio, a Fox News executive boasts that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism."

Speaking in 2009 onboard a pricey Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation." Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that "privately" he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched."

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290006

Peter Schiff gets in on the act!! Warning to Hava-gafa-kasha, this has math in it. I know it's hard, but if you take your time...................

Why Buy the Cow?

By: Peter Schiff
Monday, March 5, 2012

The communist revolutions in the 20th century sought to nationalize the wealth generated by privately held industries back to the “exploited” workers on whose backs the profits were supposedly derived. America has made the rejection of this idea and its support of free market principles the centerpiece of its economic narrative. However, as a result of our current and proposed tax policies towards corporate shareholders, our government collects a portion of industrial output that would inspire envy in even the most rabid Bolshevik.

The purpose of a corporation is to generate profits for owners (all other functions are secondary to this goal). Public corporations distribute these profits through dividends. But as a result of America's system of double taxation, where income is taxed on the corporate level and then again on the personal level, government receives a much bigger share of corporate income than the owners themselves. I also address this topic in my latest video blog.

Suppose a publicly held U.S. corporation made one million dollars in income over the course of a year. Currently its profits would be taxed at a 35% level (for the purpose of this example I will not factor in the lower rate that is applied to its first $100K of profits), meaning that the company would have to pay $350,000 directly to the government (assuming it earned its income without special tax breaks). Of the $650,000 that remained, the typical dividend-paying corporation might distribute 40 percent to shareholders (this is known as the "payout ratio" and the actual average is slightly below 40%). So in this instance the company would pay $260,000 (40% of $650,000) to shareholders. The remaining $390,000 would typically be held as "retained earnings," and would be used to maintain and replace depreciating equipment, make capital investments, fund research and development, and expand operations. If the company did not make such investments it would be impossible for it to survive and its ability to perpetuate profit distributions would be limited.

These retained earnings still represent assets to shareholders, but their primary purpose is to generate future profits and higher dividends. However, shareholders do not directly benefit from those retained earnings until future distributions are paid. Sure they can sell their shares at a gain, paying a capital gains tax in the process, but this merely transfers those deferred benefits to the new buyer.

When received by shareholders, the $260,000 in dividends are taxed again at a rate of 15 percent (according to current law). As a result, shareholders receive just $221,000 of the million dollar profit. The $39,000 in dividend taxes are added to the $350,000 “off the top” corporate tax to bring the government’s total take of the company’s profits to just a shade under $390,000. In other words the government gets about 75% more cash flow from the company than the actual owners. Looked at in a slightly different way, the government gets about 65% of the non-retained earnings while shareholders, who put up the money and take all the risk, get 35%. Does this seem fair?

This level of taxation puts American corporations at a noticeable disadvantage vis-a-vis companies in the countries against which we are most keenly competing. In China, the slicing of the pie is much more favorable to owners. There, corporations are taxed at a rate of 25% and dividends at 10%. Using these numbers (and the same payout ratio used for the U.S. corporation), the Chinese government gets 51% of distributed corporate profits and shareholders get 49%. In Hong Kong (which is part of Communist China), the situation is even better. There, the corporate tax rate is 16% and the personal dividend rate is zero. If you do the math there, the government gets 33% and the shareholders get 67%.

This comparison raises an interesting point. If shareholders in communist China are allowed to keep more of their earnings than shareholders in capitalist America, which nation is more communist and which more capitalist?

Late last month the Obama Administration and Mitt Romney offered competing proposals on corporate tax reform that both politicians say would make U.S. corporations more competitive. Romney’s plan lowers the corporate tax rate to 25% while maintaining the dividend tax at 15%. This makes things slightly better, sending 54% of distributed earnings to the government and 46% to shareholders (not quite as generous as Communist China). Not surprisingly however the Obama plan will make things much more difficult.

Although the President proposes lowering the corporate tax rate to 28% he also wants to scrap the dividend tax and instead tax the distributions as ordinary income. In practice, the vast majority of individual recipients of dividends fall into the higher end of the income spectrum. Which means a very large chunk of these dividends will be taxed at the highest personal rate of 39%. But Obama also wants to subject these high earners to a surtax to pay for his health care initiative, which means that many of the recipients will be taxed at a rate of 44% (this also accounts for the phase out of personal deductions for higher earners!) So for these high-income earners, using our current example, the new distribution split with the government under Obama’s proposals will be about 70/30 in favor of the government. This is actually worse than the status quo.

But it’s actually much worse than that. The corporate income tax is just one of the veins that corporations open for government. Think about all the other taxes that corporations pay, such as the payroll taxes and sales taxes. Sure they pass those taxes on to their employees and customers, but the revenue flows 100% to the government with shareholders getting nothing but a bill for the cost of collection.

Then there are all of the taxes paid directly by the employees themselves on their wages and salaries. Sure, this money belongs to employees and not shareholders, but if not for the profit-making activities of corporations, those wages and salaries, and resulting taxes, could not have been paid. And while employees derive benefits from those after tax distributions too, shareholders get nothing. When all of these channels are factored in, think about how much more the government derives in taxes from corporate activity than its owners receive in dividends. Who knows how high this figure is, but I’m sure the government’s take is many multiples of what shareholders receive.

Finish it up: http://www.europac.net/commentaries/why_buy_cow

Or was it too simplistic????????????????

Hava-gafa-kasha believes we should "learn" something from China. He loves thier "system" and the way their government runs things. I suppose if we really want to be like China, we should embrace their policy on corporate taxation and NOT Obama's?

Thursday, March 8, 2012
...And Yes, Barack Obama is a Marxist

It’s been four years and the mainstream media still refuses to address the fact that Barack Obama is a Marxist. In fact using that word gets you branded as a crazy (guilty but not on this issue) and someone who uses divisive "tone.

Some who brand Obama Marxist use as their evidence his policies such as the takeover of the domestic auto business, Obamacare, "redistribution of income" etc. Others examine his associations, from Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers to people he hired such as Van Jones and Rev. Jim Wallis. While valid, the examples above are purely circumstantial.

I use a simpler and more direct method of proving my case. When the President was running for the Illinois State Senate, not only did he run with the endorsement of a local socialist organization, but also he signed a contract with one of them, The New Party. The party was a Marxist Political coalition. This was not guilt by association thing. Senator Obama sought out their nomination. He was successful in obtaining that endorsement which required that he sign a contract with the group.

Read on about The New Party: http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2012/...s-marxist.html

The authors evidence starts in italics.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...ist-too-video/

Man, it's hard to keep up with all the news about Obama's belief in Marxism.

I never knew Jon Voight was such a vocal opponent of Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4

Jon Voight is right.

More socialist conspiracy theories. lol

For a guy who's supposedly sorry for his unfortunate word choice—for three hours a day, for three days straight—not to mention a man who claims to be "huge on personal responsibility and accountability," Rush Limbaugh can't seem to stop finding new people to blame for his slut crusade against Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke.

After issuing his non-apology, in which he basically said he was sorry for calling Sandra Fluke a slut, but if she weren't such a slut, he wouldn't have had to call her a slut, he then explained his non-apology by saying Barack Obama's "socialist agenda" made him do it and that he "became like them" and "descended to their level" by attacking Ms. Fluke for the better part of a week.

CRUISE SHIP CONFESSION: Top Fox News Executive Admits Lying On-Air About Obama
March 29, 2011 8:03 am ET by Eric Hananoki

In newly uncovered audio, a Fox News executive boasts that he lied repeatedly during the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when he speculated on-air "about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism."

Speaking in 2009 onboard a pricey Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college, Fox Washington managing editor Bill Sammon described his attempts the previous year to link Obama to "socialism" as "mischievous speculation." Sammon, who is also a Fox News vice president, acknowledged that "privately" he had believed that the socialism allegation was "rather far-fetched."

"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,' " said Sammon. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103290006

This thread is about Obama and his Marxist beliefs. If you'd like to start a new thread, you are free to do so. The two posts above add nothing to the discourse, but then again, you are unable of discourse due to your radical extreme left wing rigid ideology.