This seems very curious. Is there any information out there as to why Obama is supporting this?
Sometimes I call it the "Giant Robot Theory of The Presidency" -- that is, I suspect that occupying the white house is to no small extent a lot like climbing into the cockpit of a large and complex piece of anime mecha. It mediates your senses, your reality is "augmented" in a number of ways, you have information being fed to you from various subsystems. You're empowered, but you're also somewhat isolated by the cockpit, too, and it's easy to start to think about reality in terms of what the various feeds and subsystems are telling you and think about your actions largely in terms of the controls in front of you. Perhaps at first you focus that way because it's all so new and awesome and exciting, then later because you just got used to it while barely noticing how totally you accepted this interface to the world. Over time the system itself shapes your perceptions and thinking, and you think less like what you were before you climbed in and more like the system itself.
That's a colorful metaphor for saying that once you're in the leadership of an organization, you see like the organization does, because you "see" via the organization, but I think it adds something.
(BTW -- it's also true of everyone to some extent. It's a useful exercise to think about exactly what kind of mecha you've climbed into and how it's influencing you.)
I think this tendency may be more pronounced in organizations with strong mission-oriented and ends-justify-means cultures.. like, say military/defense/national security orgs, which we intentionally staff with people we train to set the value of human autonomy and even life (theirs and others) below various goals and "interests."
Colorful yet probable. It's part of the reason I've started to believe that someone with strong conviction like Ron Paul would actually be best for a while.
Daniel Ellsberg (the leaker of the Pentagon Papers) described it perfectly when talking about how he briefed Henry Kissinger upon Kissinger's appointment as National Security Advisor under Nixon:
"First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all — so much! incredible! — suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsber...
I think he's also giving thoughtful people hints about how they can mitigate the problem:
"..it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues....and with myself.
"You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours."
And this advice is relevant beyond the realm of classified information. Most people are likely to find themselves in situations where they have what they regard as privileged information/perspective that in some way they can't share with others in discussion. Remembering that other people may still have valuable contributions to make in that discussion (and perhaps even a perspective that you don't have) can help ensure what you know doesn't keep you from learning what you don't.
Reality: Obama believes in a large, powerful, intrusive central government. These spying powers are an immense source of power and ultimately control. Supporting vast domestic surveillance is consistent with his overall ideology.
Lack of any targeted surveillance is not the alternative.
The alternative is to have to get individual warrants that are targeted, specific, limited. The political machine that Obama is part of hates this alternative.
Words have specific meanings, and you shouldn't label all of your political opponents "Marxist" (or "communists", "reds", or even "fascists", "neocons", etc) just because some of those labels may have fit some political opponents in the past.
I also have a question for you. Do we only call people Marxists once we're all properties of the state, residing in gulags, or dead? Or, do we see the slow movements in that direction early on and stop them? I personally prefer the latter.
The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written by Marx and Engels, not Marx as sole author.
> Obama's actions and Marx's document align quite well. I'd love for you to show me how they don't.
Okay, sure. the Manifesto's most direct policy prescriptions are contained in Chapter 2 [0], where after acknowledging that particular steps will differ from country to country, it states that "[n]evertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable" and lists the following items:
> 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Where has Obama advocated anything like this?
> 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Certainly the US has something like this, with a suitably loose definition of "heavy", but that pre-dates Obama.
> 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Where has Obama advocated anything like this? (Proposing actually paying capital gains tax on the appreciation of capital assets transferred in inheritance -- e.g., treating transfer in inheritance like a transfer -- is far from abolition of all rights of inheritance.)
> 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Again, where has Obama advocated anything like this?
> 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The US, obviously, has a central bank, but that's not an Obama innovation.
> 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Certainly, the Obama Administration has supported some tweaks of existing communication and/or transportation regulation, but, again, where is there anything substantially like this?
> 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Again, where?
> 8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Same question as above, where has Obama advocated this?
> 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
The first part of this is a process that private industry has led in this country, but where has Obama proposed anything to advance either part?
> 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Much of the first two sentences of this had been advanced in the US prior to Obama, and is fairly (with "present" in the 1848 sense!) uncontroversial. Where has Obama done anything on the third?
Where -- with specifics from both Obama policies and the Manifesto -- has Obama, in short, done anything that shows his actions "align quite well" with the Manifesto's agenda?
[0] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...
First of all, I am aware than Engles was involved, but it was Karl Marx who slaved over this document and ideology to the detriment and devastation of his wife and children. It was Marx who was the self-centered megalomaniac behind this concept, and he who pictured a future where people would worship him as a god. Engles's most important contribution was really money.
1. As I said, Obama has used the state to block the development of domestic energy over vast amounts of land. Furthermore, Obama upholds the notion of public domain, which means our property rights are subject to the whims of the state. How does this NOT fit? Just because the state hasn't confiscated all land yet doesn't mean this shouldn't be a concern and a type of things to come.
2. I never said Obama introduced the progressive tax in America. I said he fully supports it and has expanded it. His obsession with taxing the rich is well documented. I don't believe Marx was the original inventor of all of his ideas either. Does a pre-existing art doctrine prevent us from pointing to the state of our union today and accurately declaring what is wrong with it?
3. Confiscating wealth via a death tax, regardless to what extreme you do it to, places us directly on the path of Marxism, does it not? How can you claim that the federal government's confiscation of up to 45% of your wealth upon your death isn't just slightly under halfway there when it comes to Marx's goal? If I only forcibly molested you half way, would you feel as if it hadn't happened at all?
4. You have obviously never worked abroad. The federal government absolutely rapes you in taxes, especially if you are a software engineer, successful sales person, or an executive and make more than the standard overseas deduction. Furthermore, have you ever lived overseas and held money in a financial institution? Obama got the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed in 2010, which gives the federal government the ability to order foreign financial institutions to provide information to the IRS regarding Americans' offshore holdings. Then, if they feel like it, the federal government can confiscate your off-shore property. Fits quite nicely into number 4, really.
5. Yes, number five was going on before Obama. I never said it wasn't. However, Obama embraces this centralization and accelerated it via Dodd-Frank, which drastically increased the federal government's control over financial firms; as I already mentioned.
6. Regarding communications, Obama wants to revive the "fairness doctrine." He upped the Patriot Act's spying on American citizens for the last 6 years. He has expressed hostility towards free speech on numerous occasions. Regarding transportation, Cap & Trade. He also keeps trying to push America into the government's high-speed rail system. He keeps trying to compel Americans into "green transportation" by attempting to get laws passed that outlaw things like coal, pipelines, domestic energy production, etc. Has he centralized it yet? No. But, I don't believe those things happen overnight. They are slowly introduced in order to minimize backlash. Is that what Obama is doing and are we on that path? I believe so.
7. Obama has made every attempt to inject the federal government into the health care industry, housing industry, auto industry, and energy industry. Again, he has us on the path.
8. What do you think Obama's ramping up of federal employees in the IRS, Americorps (or "corpse," if you're Obama), and his Serve America Act are?
9. Obama used the Department of Housing and Urban Development to relocate people in order to make America more evenly distributed, racially speaking. Additionally, Obama's cap & trade would severely limit our ability to commute. This has a very high potential for forcing people to live in urban hubs.
10. The purpose of this point in Marx's Communist Manifesto was to control what people think. Don't you believe that is what Common Core is all about? In his State of the Union Address in 2012, Obama called for more funds and new federal education programs, and talked about mandatory federal schooling for everyone under 18. Also, what purpose does Obama have for wanting to give Associate degrees away for free?
Did that answer your questions?
In conclusion, I never said that Obama implemented all of the Marxist problems we now have. I simply said, and proved, that he supports Marxist ideals. Just because we have had other Marxists in our country's leadership before now doesn't negate the fact that Obama is indeed a Marxist. This isn't a talking-point. It is simply a fact.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. THE MARXIST PROFESSORS and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
In other words, by his own admission, he sought out and aligned himself with Marxist professors.
It is surprising to me why smart people who can read can't see this ideal in Obama's policies, politics, and governance.
By his own words that you quote, this was done as political cover to avoid certain labeling.
That quote does not support your argument.
I'm not really sure why you're having a hard time accepting that Obama leans towards that ideology. The evidence is all there.
Since you, and those who down-voted my posts, are so smart, please explain how Obama's attempts to increase state control over our energy, health care, economy, finance, and education are not Marxists ideals and leading us down that socialist path.
Please explain how Obama's blocking of domestic energy supplies via the assertion of government ownership and regulation over massive amounts of acreage isn't Marxist.
Please explain how Obama's maniacal zeal for progressive income taxes specifically targeting the rich is not Marxist.
Please explain how Obama's desire to reinstate estate taxes isn't Marxist.
Please explain how Dodd-Frank wasn't a giant leap towards the centralization of the U.S.'s financial system into the hands of the federal government.
Please explain Obama's appointments of self-proclaimed Marxist Van Jones and his relationships with his mentor, and documented member of the Communist Party, Frank Marshall Davis, and the links of David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett to the Chicago Communist Party.
Instead of down-voting my posts, why not read The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx, for yourself and see exactly how Obama's policies align with that document's 10 steps. No, we're not to the gulag stage yet, but that is certainly the path Obama has us on. Read and see.
> domestic energy supplies
If you want to drill for oil on public land, your fellow citizens would like you to not fsck-up the land while you exploit it. Only in childish pure-capitalist fantasies does a business get to exploit common resources without without any social responsibility.
> progressive income taxes
Again, you apparently don't understand the difference between Marx's ideas of state ownership and modern economic theories, only some of which is even considered socialist. You tax the rich because they are the people with the money. Trying to squeeze it out of the poor with a flat tax is not only wildly socially irresponsible, it also creates social unrest. It also fails a producing revenue for the government.
Oh, and you did know that progressive income tax started a loooong time before Marx was born, right? Even the ancient Romans had a progressive income tax.
> estate tax
Nothing specific to do with any of the economic suggestions discussed by Marx. Like the progressive income tax, limiting the dynastic accumulation of "old money" with an estate tax is a lot older than Marx. It's not like it even affects many people, contrary to the lies spread by many right-wing pundits. Are you leaving more than $5,430,000 to your kids? You did know that the estate tax exempts that amount, right?
...
Ok, I have better things to do than to point out the errors in your fairly stereotypical GOP-propaganda-based view of the world.
Obama has done more to continue Republican policies than any other modern president. You might want to take note of that - and do more reading about the history of politics on all sides. Obama and our current government have done some very worrying things (the Patriot Act power grabs that are the subject of this thread are a good example). I suggest focusing on these real problems if you want to accomplish something useful. Retreading old, easily debunked GOP is a waste of time and distracts from the actual problems that need to be addressed.
Your second point is an appeal to probability fallacy. You conclude that Obama blocked development of energy in America because companies wouldn't develop energy responsibly, when there is no logical reason to make that assumption given that plenty of companies produce energy in non-destructive ways.
Your understanding of tax systems seems flawed. There are many, many countries in the world, especially in the Soviet block region, that have implemented flat tax systems, have have enjoyed economic growth, and have not had the social unrest you claim comes with the territory. Even in countries where the flat tax system hasn't gone as well as hoped, other factors, such as government corruption, wasteful spending, high tax rates, etc. have been destructive elements that cannot be ignored. This is all irrelevant, however, and simply a smokescreen to hide the fact that Obama's is obsessed with taxing the rich (and the middle class) using Marx's envy-based tax system.
I'm not sure what your point is on estate taxes. Are you saying that if a bad policy only affects a small number of people then it is OK? Or, do you mean to suggest if I don't have $5.43 million in my estate I shouldn't have an opinion on said bad policy?
I have better things to do that argue the obvious with someone who is obviously playing team sports. I'm surprised you didn't find a way to fit Fox News or Rush Limbaugh into your argument. I am not a member nor a supporter of the GOP. I am well aware that Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies, while sprinkling his own brand of Marxist idealism on them in order to really polish the giant turd that is the federal government today. How is this relevant?
I don't support either of the big parties and suggest you and others consider doing the same. Your civic duty isn't a basketball game. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, as long as you vote for what is right. Currently, I don't believe correct governing principles exist in either of the major parties. They are both corrupt.
Your tax-law ideas are half right-wing standard propaganda, half nonsense. "obsessed with taxing the rich"? The rich enjoy the lowest taxes in living memory. They need to be taxed more to counteract the income disparity. Failure to do so will lead to revolution. "wasteful spending" - yet another GOP talking point.
$5M is plenty of inheritance. I would personally tax anything above that at 100% - large amounts of inherited wealth is high damaging. The current law in this area is an acceptable compromise. (Also, as most people don't even care, just bringing this up suggests you follow right wing politics and propaganda.
> Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies
> How is this relevant?
> /user?id=innocentoldguy
> created: 22 days ago
> I don't support either of the big parties
> I believe God created
> Of course people choose to be gay.
> I'm approaching 50
You have several decades of catching up to do - not just on the political situation of the last few decades, but also modern economic theory and social theory. Instead, I suspect you'll continue to support the rich, who have proven very successful at getting what they want by manipulating fears of the "other", while dangling dreams of future riches. Maybe one day you'll notice.
1. So, you can't see how controlling the purse strings of medicine is controlling health care? Really? Even if it were completely irrelevant, which it's not, Marxism is about the state taking control of industry, so wouldn't you say Obama has made great strides in allowing the state to take over the health insurance industry? Either way, my point has been made, right?
2. You keep throwing the word "propaganda" and "talking points" around at me, but those two items make up the entirety of your argument. The Democrats always want to point to the extremely high taxes of the 1960, and the economic growth during that era, as proof that the progressive tax system and extremely high taxes (90%+) on the rich work. They point to the Clinton era to show that progressive idealism works. What the Democrats fail to mention is that many of the rich left the country to avoid those taxes in the 1960s, that the economy began to collapse during Clinton's second term, and that Japan's economy collapsed in the 1990s under almost the exact same tax system (I lived there at the time and know). The truth is that high/low taxes always come in cycles and so do economic growths and downturns. Taxes are only one line item in a very complex economic calculation. If you want to argue tax theory, we can do that in another post. My point was, and remans to be, that Obama is a Marxist, and he has made many comments himself to back up that assertion, such as, "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money." Why not go to YouTube and look and see all the videos showing Obama talking about raising taxes on the rich. Whether he has been able to do so or not is irrelevant. Those are his ideals and they are straight out of The Communist Manifesto.
Not that it is relevant to my point, but to address your "wasteful spending" comment, in 2014 alone, the federal government spent money to study the effects of Swedish massages or rabbits, to watch grass grow, to discover how and why Wikipedia is sexist, to see if mothers love dogs as much as they do kids, a smart-phone game to encourage kids to eat peas and other healthy foods, and to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills. Do we really need any of that? Really? This list doesn't even address the various departments offering redundant services, the mismanagement, the fraud, etc. When you get a letter from your bank saying you're overdrawn, or when you see you've been double-charged for something on your credit card statement, do you consider that a "talking point?" At what point do facts and reality become something more than a "talking point" for you?
3. No, what I said is that Obama is a Marxist and so was Bush, to some degree.
4. And now we get to the liberal classics. The absolutely irrelevant, ad hominem attacks against me personally because you have nothing else to say. I've been caught! OK, let's follow your logic here for all the other boys and girls. I might as well, since I've been outed, right? Like the closing monologue of a Scooby Do cartoon. OK, here's what I did... I saw this thread yesterday, got in my Koch-brothers Brand™ time machine, traveled back in time 22 days, set up an account, and made comments on technical articles so that nobody would know I'm a GOP shill. Then, when this article popped up 22 days later, according to my new timeline, I sprung my trap against Obama's political dogma. You're logic is absolutely flawless, and I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
5. Again, the ad hominem arguments... I think the term you're looking for is "Tea Party supporter." I also think it is humorous, and a bit sad, that you feel the need to group, label, and classify me. You have to have me be on a team that you oppose and are unable to discuss the facts outside of that paradigm. Your hope seems to be to discredit the facts I'm presenting by discrediting me as a person. Don't you think your argument is probably quite weak if you have to resort to such tactics?
Another funny thing is, I had never heard of the Koch brothers until Harry Reid gathered up his slip and curls, and started crying into his pillow over them. Who exactly is the talking-point-parroting, propagandist shill in this conversation?
6. I have more than enough money for my needs. I am self-reliant and I do for myself, and don't need to suckle at the teat of government, looking for a handout. I'm happy to keep what I earn and let others do the same. I'm also happy to share with those less fortunate than me. I feel sorry for you, that you feel you have some right to the rewards of other people's labor, and are looking for that payday from the government, which in my fifty years under Democrat and Republican rule, has simply never come.
Now, you haven't said one thing to suggest that Obama isn't a Marxist. You've just attacked me. Can we please stick to the Obama/Marxist topic, since that is, after all, what you supposedly wish to argue about?