The Credit Downgrade: Symptom of the Marxist Disease
On August 5, 2011, the credit rate of the United States was downgraded for the first time in this country’s history. That was a shot across the bow warning that Marxism can damage even the almighty United States.
Native Americans say that if you really want to know someone, you have to walk a mile in his moccasins. I walked in Marxist shoes over many miles and for many years, and I am convinced that if the Democratic Party has its way, it will transform the United States into a socialist country in all but name. During the 2008 election campaign, its leaders loudly announced that they would drastically increase taxes on the American rich — American businesses and their owners — in order to finance programs for the poor. In other words, that they would start transforming capitalist America into a socialist state.
If there had been any doubt in my mind that the Democratic Party was following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, that doubt vanished when the Democrats began ferociously fighting against extending the Bush tax cuts for individuals making more than $200,000 per year. That is core Marxism at its fundamental best. In his Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx urged his followers to “eradicate capitalism” and advocated ten “despotic inroads on the rights of property,” which became known as the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto. Among them were: a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, abolition of all rights of inheritance, and abolition of property.[1]
It is time to call a spade a spade — this is Marxism we are talking about, pure and simple.
This bubonic plague of the last century killed tens of millions in the Soviet empire alone, but a young generation of Americans who know little about its destructive power decided to give it a new lease on life. In November 2008 the Democratic Party won the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress, and soon after that the United States began being changed from a country belonging to “We the People” into one managed by a kind of Marxist nomenklatura with unchecked power.
This new American nomenklatura started running the country secretly, just as all Marxist nomenklaturas did. “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” the leader of the nomenkatura in the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, once told the media. That was a first in U.S. history. It did not take long before this American nomenklatura took control of home mortgages, banks, auto-makers, and most of the health care industry. When tens of thousands of Americans objected to the cloak of secrecy under which all this was taking place, the same Nancy Pelosi called them Nazis. That was exactly what all post-WWII Marxist nomenklaturas called their opponents.
On Feb. 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed: “We Are All Socialists Now.”[2] That was also what Romania’s Marxist newspaper Scînteia proclaimed when the kingdom of Romania was changed into a “Popular Republic.” The U.S. nomenklatura has produced the same results as Romania’s nomenklatura had — on a U.S. scale. Over fourteen million Americans are currently out of work, and 41.8 million people are on government food stamps. The national debt is at an unprecedented $13 trillion, and it is projected to reach $18 trillion by 2019.
I believe in calling a duck a duck also.
To our shame, we have elevated Marxists to the highest offices in the land.
Our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers sweated, bled, and died winning and defending our liberty and wealth. They instituted the highest ideals possible as the law of the land. They tamed a wilderness by sheer force of will and back breaking labor. They built a country like no other in the history of the world and marched into the teeth of machine guns to defend it. The nation they built has passed to us and we owe them as much as they gave us.
Yet, we sit on our hands while it is all squandered.
Shame on us. Shame.
People tend to forget the 2009 budget passed by Obama and the Democrats without any Republican support at all. In all the screaming about the “stimulus” or Obamacare, people tend to forget about the 2009 budget, which dramatically increased baseline spending for everything, especially social-welfare programs. It was a Democratic wish list come true and it now raised baseline spending for all programs to new highs. So if we simply wanted to save a couple of hundred billion dollars by coming down to 2008 spending levels, the world would end according to the Democrats. And these are the same people who have been calling Tea Party members “Nazis, Brown Shirts, Un-American, Terrorists, and Hostage-Takers.” The liberals are the true villains in this and should be called out for their horrific conduct here, spending trillions of dollars we just don’t have.
The liberals in Congress like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are a vile cancer growing on the Federal Government. 2012 will determine if the cancer is terminal, or if we have a chance at cutting it out through a national election. Do Americans really want marxism to take over the country, or do they want to return to capitalism, the form of government that made America the most powerful country on the planet. The choice really is up to you people out there. I’m voting for capitalism. Hope everyone else makes that choice too. Sad to see it come down to this, but it has.
My city has signed up for UN Agenda 21 (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html) has yours?
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”
—Vladimir Lenin—
The communist infestation is a permanent condition. It’s a chronic decease. The blame should go to conservatives for not being vigilant in fighting it.
One example. The most recent lie the Marxists have invented is that the Bush tax cuts caused the 14 trillion debt. This has been mentioned a million times lately in articles, interviews, debates etc. And it is rapidly approaching status as self evident truth. Yet not a single conservative has been confronting this falsehood.
This most resent Marxist lie is based on looking at the tax cuts isolated and not look at what happens with the rest of the economy as a result of the tax cuts.
The explanation is simple. The theory behind tax cuts is that tax cuts stimulate the private sector. Therefore the unemployment goes down and the GDP grows. When unemployment goes down and the GDP grows, tax revenues go up. And the concept is that the gains from the growth in GDP and the increased tax base is bigger than the loses in revenue from the tax cuts. And the proof of the theory in this case is that the tax revenues actually increased substantially in the years after the Bush tax cuts.
But quite predictably conservatives are sleeping at the wheel and does nothing to hit back against the falsehoods.
Young Americans have been propogandized by the public school teachers who began in the sixties to inculcate Marxism as the true American religion. They were followed by the entertainment media who introduced the nihilists to the young who taught them that life was really about sex, drugs and rock and roll. Then the liberal christian churches jumped on the bandwagon and agreed to promote this same toxic culture. There are many villains in the American tragedy. Do not forget the American government which tried to convince us that he had been fighting communism in the forty year period after WWII but in reality was subsidizing Marxism in the educational system and permitting a Communist dictatorship ninety miles off the coast of Florida at the same time it was sending thousands of young American boys to their deaths in Vietnam supposedly to fight Communism. In the end Americans got what they had been begging for for decades and now we have a native established Marxist state run by an evil Muslim racist.
In addition to Marxism establishing an increased influence in America, we’ve also had a steep moral decline which has worked hand-in-hand with Marxism, undermining traditional forces. This should have been obvious to most people, but many of us have shielded our eyes for decades. And many of us, while pretending to be conservative, have actively bought into so much of what Hollywood and the rest of the media have fed us while saying, “Oh, its only a movie,” etc. And many of us, hiding behind the label of Libertarian, have settled for the canard that, “Oh, its really a woman’s right to choose,” etc.
And now, phenomena such as the racist flash mobs that are becoming active in many of our cities should make it apparent that we are approaching the violence and social decay that we see with the riots in Britain. Like Britain, we already have a large underclass who will work only too willingly with their Leftist enablers in the privileged classes to further bring down our system.
What a silly childish article. It is summarized by the following phrase found int he 5th paragraph:
“In November 2008 the Democratic Party won the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress, and soon after that the United States began being changed from a country belonging to “We the People” into one managed by a kind of Marxist nomenklatura with unchecked power.”
This description is so radically different from what actually happened….if it is any indication of the type of information available on pajamas media, then go looking for useful information elsewhere.
If it is any indication of the beliefs of enough voters to decide elections…there is no hope for the USA.
So please enlighten us how Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Clinton AREN’T Marxists and the democrats AREN’T pushing a completely Marxist agenda down the throats of Americans. To paraphrase – Show me the capitalism.
39 appointed “Czars” (with perhaps more on the way), and a wealth of other events rather contradict you.
I know that Czar word sound awfully Marxist and all (Marxism is a Russian Phenomenon?) but lets just tear to shreds this little bit of logical fallacy. The Marxists killed the Czars and rid Russia of them. If it made any sort of logical sense to deduce from the names given to the jobs (and these are not official titles but rather euphemisms used in the press) then the reasonable deduction would be, appointing a czar is anti-Marxist, counter-revolutionary, and reactionary, not a sign of Marxist ascendancy.
All that said, it is a weak piece of logic to deduce anything from the use of the word Czar. You can call a duck a doctor and that won’t make other doctors into ducks. Let us continue with this czar bit. The word Czar, like Kieser, is derived from the word Caesar. As you should know, Caesar was the family name of the original Imperial Dynasty of Rome. Eventually Caesar became a title used by all Emperors of Rome until Dioclecian made Caesar an official title that went to a lesser Emperor. Eventually it became something like the Prince of Wales designation of the first in line to the British Throne. There was a time when Constantine (the guy that introduced Christianity to official status in the Roman Empire) was Caesar. When Constantine became sole Emperor of Rome he moved its capital a newly built to New Rome, built on the small town of Byzantium, and which the people began to call Constantinople. Eventually the Emperor in Constantinople was in negotiations with a warlike group of barbarians from Scandinavia called the Rus. In negotiating for their support, he gave them a large swath of territory to the north of the Roman Empire and they agreed to convert to Christianity. These people became the Russians and the territory is called Russia. Their king eventually took on that name given to ruling princes of Rome, Caesar… They pronounced is Czar.
With all that said, are you going to suggest that maybe Obama was appointing Caesars in the form of Constantine (the guy who made Rome Christian) and so is helping to make America Christian? Or are you going to suggest that in calling various bureaucrats in his office Czars, that he was giving these bureaucratic fiefdoms to them in exchange for their allying to him and converting to Christianity? No!!! You do not. You don’t do so because it does not follow the model you perceive, even if there are more reasonable (if no less incorrect), more coherent, and more historically viable ways of playing with the the terms you pretend to understand.
The word Czar, like Kieser, is derived from the word Caesar.
I think the word “Kieser” in that sentence should be “Kaiser”, the term used for the ruler of Germany from 1870 on.
Thank you for raising your point about the Czars. I was tempted to do it myself but feared it might be seen as excessively pedantic.
It might be interesting to figure out who first used the term “Czar” to describe the minions appointed by Obama to implement his will. I’d be curious to know what their political orientation was. I wonder if he/she was a leftist who meant to use “commissar” but thought of “czar” first and figured that they were both Russian words meaning some type of leader so they were probably interchangeable….
Czar and Commissar mean different things and obviously connotate differently. I suppose the comment I responded to shows that a word may connote different things to different people (not to speak to which connotation is the more historically relevant). I’m not sure who exactly publicized the the use of the Czar term within the Obama administration or if it even came from the administration. I do know that in the NBA there is a nick name for Mike Fratello “Czar of the Telestrator” and many other popularly used euphemisms in which the word Czar, when coupled with a field or product, is simply used to express ultimate authority within that field or with that product. It certainly does not connotate Communist, Marxist, Bolshevik or Socialist leanings. Commissar might, but I suspect this word is derived from the word Czar with either “community” or “commission” being the subject of what that person has authority over. Don’t hold me to it.
My political views… I can’t stand either party much. I voted McCain last election and wished I had a better candidate. I currently lean toward Romney but that has as much to do with my sister’s position in his campaign as anything. She would likely be working in a wing of the White House if he wins. I think both parties are equally responsible for the shrinking of the Middle-Class and that this is a phenomenon that has been in the coming over the course of 40 years, at least. Trickle Down economics might work, but the problem is that what does trickle down is trickling to to the Chinese, Indians, and the peoples of other countries, rather then to you, I or most Americans.
I think this might inform you of my views on government. Nobody here thinks that America shouldn’t have a socialized Army. So, government does do certain things better then the public sector. Back when Rome was transitioning to Empire, they had a fellow called Crassus and one of the many ways he got rich was with his Fire Brigade. Crassus would find out that somebody’s property was on fire and show up with his brigade. He would then negotiate terms by which he would buy the property while the house burned. Since it was on fire, he got very good prices and then would put out the fire with his men. This is not a business. It is a racket. A fellow citizen is being negotiated with while at a point of ultimate weakness. You are about to lose everything and rather then do so, you chose to lose almost everything. I think having a public fire-service is good for a population. Yet, this is the same condition one finds themselves in when going for any major health treatment. If you have cancer, major organ problems, are in great pain, or have mental issues, you are under duress and can’t really chose to not spend your money. Better to lose most, rather then all. One is dizzy and suddenly tired, find it difficult to get up and then feels numbness in the extremities, what happens? Emergency is called, you wind up having to spend money on an ambulance maybe, the emergency room for sure, and add in paying for the room, each doctor who looked at you, and then each machine that was used to test you. MRIs, CAT Scan, X-Ray, Echo test, and then the specialist who ran this test, and the lab that might have tested your blood etc… All this without treatment for anything. This is just diagnosis and it costs dozens of thousands of dollars. Regulation has increased cost. Also, American citizens have subsidized the research and development of many treatments by helping fund research at places like UCLA etc… We are not being compensated directly for our investment. The nature of the system, and the alternative to not being treated, if under severe duress, all make this situation much like those that Romans found themselves when Crassus came to your house with his Fire Brigade. So, I think smart regulation, and adaptive regulation (one not designed by the companies that are being regulated) is a positive. I think human enterprise is a positive. I think unions in the private sector is a positive. I think unions in the public sector is not. I think a balanced budget is the right stance sometimes, and the wrong stance in others. I think we need jobs, but we need to insist that they be good jobs. No reasonably competent person at the age of 35 needs to be flipping burgers if they don’t want to. Somebody with a BS degree and 10 years in an industry that requires trained professionals involved with system analysis should not be anything other then middle-class, and that is not the case. If you live in a high demand state (California, New York etc…) you cannot maintain a middle class lifestyle on only $70k-$80k. You will be choked trying to buy and maintain a home and raise a few kids. The definition of middle-class is that you can do those things without being choked out. We have lost that capacity for a number of natural reasons. The world caught up to us after the great damage done by WWII. Other then that, both parties sold us on globalization and that was not good for most Americans. It was only good for companies that didn’t care who they gave jobs to (so long as the labor was cheap) and who they sold their product to (so long as they can get their products to those markets), but did care about who they would pay taxes to, and that they can continue to lobby to pay as little tax as possible. So, we got sold out by both parties. I guess that is my political leaning.
The wealthy adapt. When they see opportunity to make money they will create jobs. If the opportunity to make money is in cutting jobs, that is what they will do. Taxes have no substantial say in the equation. You can tax a business and if in the end, they made more money by providing jobs then in not, they will create the job. If one the other hand, you do not tax a company at all, or even subsidize it, they will cut jobs as long as they will make more money by cutting jobs. I am not a proponent of income tax as I think of it as a form of slavery. As we do have income tax, I do not think we should have deductibles. I think we should tax goods and services and let the fruits of one’s labors be one’s own. On the other hand, I do not think entities such as non-profits, corporations, or other organizations are people. They should not have the same protections under the law as people do. One of those elements they should not be protected from is income-tax. Gay marriage makes no sense to me, as I have a pretty historically sound view of what marriage is. Yet, I could care less if we have gay unions and that gay couples have all the same rights as married couples. I think abortion is the killing of a human, but I don’t have the certitude it takes to care that babies are being killed in abortion clinics. I can certainly understand why people would have an issue with their tax money going to pay for them. The Social issues just don’t really bother me very much.
I am very Zionist, to the point that I think the only just solution is to spend all that money wasted on the Palestinians in getting them settled on the east side of the Jordan.
I don’t know what I am politically. I am adaptive, I guess.
Kevin Hill,
Pacepa is in the position to recognize Marxists when he sees/hears them, better than you ever will. You clearly do not know this man’s background otherwise you’d not resort to platitudes.
Kevin, Yours is the typical leftist drive-by response that so often happens in articles like this. First you insult the author but give no basis for your insult. Then you say the article is worthless but give no facts to back it up. You then condemn the entire site because this article is so “poor”.
In the past, Mr. Pacepa has experienced Marxism first hand. He knows how it devastates an economy. He now sees in this country what he has seen in the past, and I can also see the rapid decay of our country.
Kevin, you bother me. You seek not to discuss, but distract people from the truth.
Dear Kevin:
One of the prime symptoms of this virus is the inability to realize that you’ve got it.
Chances are, you are one of the millions of Americans who have passed through what passes for the American “educational” system in the last 35-40 years. I hate to tell you, but, compared to previous generations, you have been deprived of most of your intellectual freedom. 50-60 years ago, it would have been possible for you to receive a more diverse, dispassionate—truly liberal—education that exposed you to a wide variety of contrasting opinions. This was in the days when you could say anything you wanted to on a campus, and no one would try to shut you up. Imagine that!
I apologize for the fashionable morons of my generation who did this to you, but I can do no more. You have two choices: you can stubbornly continue to salivate at stones, thinking they are rare steaks–as the Marxists would have you believe–or you can break free of your chains and start reading things outside your comfort zone and punch free into intellectual independence. Your personal freedom, and that of your children, depends on it. Wake up; you’re living in the Matrix.
PS. For the blithe morons commenting that socialism ain’t such a bad thing: Slavery is also a steady gig, but I wouldn’t want that, either. Besides, socialism is a gateway drug; it always leads to tyranny. You’re ignorant. Go out and read a goddamned book or two: history, economics, philosophy, logic. For the last 40 years, your mind has been carefully shepherded away from any thought that might destroy the illusion. Read those books. It took thousands of years and millions of lives to give you the personal freedom you enjoy right now—even if it isn’t always a bed of roses. If you would throw away your precious freedom so lightly, you deserve whatever you get. And be damned.
@ Kevin #7
I’m confused; I thought this WAS what happened. Could I impose upon you to please explain what really happened? I’d like to become better informed, so if you could include your sources it would be most helpful.
Thanks,
A Marxist nomenklatura took over with unchecked power?
Sources? Get a freaking newspaper. Do you not believe that Republicans were recently elected to congress? That they can freely associate and run for the presidency?
Why aren’t these people arrested as enemies of the state, their party outlawed? Are the Marxists just toying around with you people? After all, according to you they’ve got “unchecked power”.
All this unchecked omnipotent power and they have meet Republican demands to move a debt ceiling? Your taxes haven’t even gone up during this Marxist reign of terror.
Political disagreement is fine, but at a certain point to say that we are in some Marxist totalitarian regime is several large stacks of sandwiches short a picnic.
Site sources? You mean “reality’? Didn’t you read the article, Lefty? Pelosi’s epitaph, Waters’ hopes and dreams, Obamacare, the national debt, the growing government, Obama’s famous “Healthcare is a right” and “How much money do you need?” socialist/communist statements. To HuffPo you must go, comrade.
Your ignorance is stultifying. Lenin would be proud.
Sure, you’re totally free here…as long as you buy the kind of light bulbs they tell you to buy, as long as you buy insurance when they tell you to buy it, as long as you hand half your income over to the government, as long as you involuntarily pay into the ponzi scheme known as Social Security, and as long as you sign your kids up for possible compulsory military service.
You’re as free as a bird.
And, you’re free to disagree politically too, except if you propose an armed uprising against the government, like the one carried out by George Washington et al, you just committed a felony. So, take care with exactly how you disagree.
WOW! Excellent article. I have lived for 60 years and have watched this march toward a socialist society since my youth. The hatred for all of our sacred traditions and values has increased with an ascending pace since the radical anti-war activists took to the streets over Viet Nam. What has me very alarmed is the rapidity of the decline since the election of Obama. The left’s overt actions are as apparent as the rise of our national debt. We have to make a HUGE change in our elected representatives in 2012 or it’s over for us.
Somehow we have got to take back at least ONE of these alphabet soup stations. I thought with Disney buying ABC it would be more family oriented – but I was WRONG! We need (even if it’s a whole town that pools their money) to get one of them because what I saw over the Ryan plan was dispicable. It was a lie (Ryan pushing granny over the cliff) and it was played every commercial break for weeks. There was no GOP response because the stations refused to air one. Money wasn’t the issue – ideology was. People could not even BUY time to put up the other side.
What the “Ryan Pushing Granny Over the Cliff” ad did not show — but could have, if the camera had zoomed back far enough — was Obama pushing America into the abyss.
The West tried to commit suicide in the late 1930s and very nearly succeeded. We’re trying again, as events in Europe, Britain and here show. Will we succeed? Next year will tell.
One hope remains: Those currently in power in the countries within the Commonwealth to insist on changes to that organization, so that the mantle of leadership of the west be returned to the Commonwealth. For 55 years, at the minimum, is how long the US was able to bear the burdens of leadership.
DURBIN DISSES REPORTER’S DOWNGRADE QUESTION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed…
“Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.” George Washington
For a few generations now, our government has been led by people who have no problem burdening generations as yet unborn with debt to pay for their political power today. Deficit spending is stealing from our children’s future. So let’s call them what they are – economic pedophiles. They’re screwing children financially for their own political benefit.
To a large degree, the elected officials in DC are the show government. The real power in Washington DC are the American nomenklatura, the bureaucrats and the judges. They’re unelected, unaccountable and untouchable. It doesn’t matter who is in the White House because they know that politicians come and go while the bureaucracy goes on forever. The only way to break their stranglehold is to defund them.
I am also from Communist E.Europe and I know you are right 100%
More here: http://www.commieblaster.com/
Yes, we have marxists/communists all around us and in our gov’ment. But Roosevelt stayed long enough to breach the walls of the Constitution and its been non-stop liberalism for 70 years. Its destroyed the families, destroyed the schools, pushed out God, and has us deep in debt. We either turn the ship of state around, or we suffer the fate of failed empires ie. decline. Just look at the riots in Europe. These are coddled kids. The gimmie kids. That’s our future.
The socialist ‘march’ through our institutions began in the 1880′s. Google: ’1880′s Seminaries socialism’ as one example. Related keywords will provide similar, but separate references. Also see: ‘Progresive Era,’ where the first Progressive Era president was a Republican.
WWII, as a result, was a matter of which brand of national socialism would prevail. Remember, FDR was a socialist in all but name. Remember his policies? Remember what kinds of legislation and programs he signed into law? His public works projects? They all flew in the face of The Constitution. In fact, he later loaded the Supreme Court with political allies who would refuse to turn down his programs on a constitutional basis.
Today, so-called conservatives think nothing of promoting socialist ideas and policies as a matter of course, including many of the policies enacted by FDR and even Wilson, before him. Decrying the policies of Wilson and FDR wile supporting and defending their policies? Pfft. You aren’t free until you can think for yourselves. Then, they have troubles with identifying where and how their liberties were lost.
Mussolini identified national socialism as the marriage between corporations and the state. Today, we hear of complaints about K Street and J Street lobbyists, but no one, right or left, does anything about it. Corporations pay the greater part of the expenses for most political campaigns, but Republicans and conservatives will deny that their party has anything to do with national socialism, in spite of their support for – wait for it – social security.
Another sign of national socialism is large, standing armies. In America, this was not so much of a problem until just before WWII, during FDR’s tenure as president. Since Korea, out military has only grown in size and…in expense. In all prior generations, the military was immediately, and drastically, ‘down-sized’ after a war.
There are other examples in America of the definition of national socialism, including a nationalized education system. The same system that educated you has shaped your perceptions of your supposed freedoms. Many among you proclaim the education system to be nothing but a propaganda mill, yet, are you not a product of that same propaganda mill, believing that you are free, when, in fact,you’ve been enslaved all along?
Fees, licenses, permits and other costs an regulations control every aspect of your lives…and they have controlled you for generations.
The left in America, I would think are closer to communist ideologies than to true socialists.
Socialist March started in the 1880′s?
I’m pretty sure Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase quite a bit before the 1880′s. He purchased it for the US using money got by the government with taxpayer funds. Then, for the next several decades, the US sold that land for many times less then it’s open market value. That is called a government subsidy, which seems to qualify for Socialist these days. That policy, BTW, has as much to do with the expansion of the US and of our prosperity as anything you might think of. It also gave the many tired and poor, living in the eastern cities, a place to which they might find new opportunities. I’m not really buying that this was a bad thing for America.
Confirmation bias is not a great intellectual trait to sustain.
I’m poor. I have no stake in any particular outcome. To paraphrase the words of the old man at the bordello in “Catch 22″, “When the Fascists took over Italy, I was fanatically pro-fascist; when the Nazis took over the country, I became fanatically pro-Nazi; When the Americans liberate Italy, I will be fanatically pro-American.”
You people make too big a deal of drowning. Take the scene in “Schindler’s List”, when Mr. Schindler takes up residence in the former home of deported jews, for example. Do you think he felt any remorse for them for all the beautiful possessions they were forced to leave behind? Of course not. He was an opportunist-at that moment, anyway-whose conscience eventually brought him to the point of saving some jews, but those whose home he occupied in the meantime meant little or nothing to him. Thus likewise America. The ultra-rich have no stake in our-meaning the bottom 99 percent of the population-welfare, aside from keeping the few of us alive that can run the machinery. Their ability to travel and move about on this planet is unhindered even by customs considerations (and I have been on hand to watch how easily they pass through, too), thus allowing them a mindset of privilege and entitlement unmatched by even the wildest dreams of any welfare cheat.
That the USA can and will become a socialist nation is academic. Those of us who have no stake in anything outside of our immediate surroundings, lack health care, have miserable, low-paying employment, and experience the indignities and degradations of Mr Shakespeare’s “insolence of office” every day, socialism is a step up.
I, for one, welcome it.
The “poor” today, in this country, become the middle class tomorrow, who become the rich. I’ve lived this transformation. You’re happy to live off government largess permanently. I pity you.
James, you seriously skeeve me out, dude.
My husband and I are struggling to make ends meet every damned month but I would never want to force someone to give me what is rightfully theirs to decide if/when/how they want to help others down on their luck.
There will always be poor people because we aren’t all ‘equal’, some people are smarter, some people are better looking, some people are obese Welfare recipients and some people are blithering morons, glares in your direction *cough-cough-cough*…
If you want to see truly needy people who are starving, emaciated and dying because ‘nobody’ helped them…I dare you to find me that person here in America.
You should be ashamed, you Socialist dolt.
Now talk about bull. It was your beloved Bush who bankrupted this country. When Clinton handed him the presidency, he also gave him a treasury that was swimming in money.. they had more money than they knew what to do with.. the first thing Bush did was to give a two trillion dollar break to the rich and the infamous.. Next thing, he was sleeping at the wheel when al qaida terrorists attacked.. he had dismissed them as a bunch of ragtags not worthy of the attention of his highness.. booom went couple more trillion with the twin towers.. when the decider attacked Afghanistan he could not tell the difference between taliban and the al qaida. So he picked a fight with the Pashtoon Usama was more than happy to fight the US till the last taliban.. But that was not good enough for the man, he wanted mission to be accomplished.. this was the moment the neo-con cabal has been waiting for decades.. so they came up with a strange idea that you fight them at their turf lest you fight them your own.. And of all the turfs he picked Iraq to fight al Qaida.. Now, Iraq had nothing to do with those jihadis, if anything just contempt.. moreover Iraq was a deeply fractured country with the oppressed Shias and kurds looking for an opportunity to get even.. Iran was more than happy to fight the great satan in Iraq.. Bush have not even heard of the religious and ethnic divide in the country whose name he could not even pronounce.. The short of it, with the assistance of Ralph peters among others, Bush blew another trillion on the two wars with no end in sight.. All the while the Chinese and the Russians are laughing all the way to the bank.. So how would all this end? An African American man gets to hold the bag.. and Ralph Peters cries foul.. no crap!
And yet, the entirety of the European welfare state is collapsing before your very eyes… That’s Bush’s fault, too.
Lenin never lacks for useful idiots. Polly want a cracker?
The truth is there is no way to do away with property ownership. It is either owned and controlled by the people who create and organize it or it is owned and controlled by the people who control government. Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il and Caesescu in Roumania controlled the property turned over to them as much as JD Rockefeller controlled the property he arranged to consolidate under his thumb, mostly by buying it for Standard Oil shares for dimes on the dollar from people he cajoled, threatened or defeated. Control is ownership. So turning ownership of property over to those who control the government (mostly by military force) is not doing away with private ownership, it is only doing away with competition and private property reward for productivity and creativity and profit. Profit creates new money value. With Capitalistic Monopoly, or monopolistic capitalism, which is what Lenin-Stalin-Maoism is (aka “communism [sic]“) destroys productivity and the money supply and leads to downgrade and starvation, because all competitive incentive to create new wealth and money value (which gets its value from market wealth) is destroyed. The one owner with all property has no incentive to produce (Stalin spent most of his time in drunken revelry when he wasn’t fighting wars and signing death warrants — and Mao infected young girls with venereal disease while refusing his doctor’s oders to have it cured). So anyone who thinks monopolistic capitalism does away with private property or the use of capital (i.e., tools and factories — Stalin and Mao also spent time trying to build factories while robbing all their potential customers. Pol Pot, the agrarian reformer, missed that part) is nuts. Wake up people. Competition for profit and newly created money value works. Monopoly to kill profit and money doesn’t. And then the sole owner has to kill all his potential competitors and set up slave labor camps. They really have no other choice. This is not complicated. To me as an American Freedom and private enterprise are better.
Wow – Thank you PAJAMAS MEDIA for the article by Ion Mihai Pacepa.
Hard for the communists among us to really tear into the General – facts do seem to stop them in their tracks every time. It is rather amazing how the communist mind throws up a wall of baseless words – paragraph after paragraph – when faced with facts! ‘Prove it’ earns a rebuttal of bullshit half a page long – and as far as the Kaiser and all of the derivatives – consider it a chance for the trouble mind to ruminate far away from the issue!
There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans really, it’s all a show to fool the public. We saw this during the recent vote. Don’t believe these lying Republican candidates who now speak with conservative tongue, as soon as one is in office he’ll be like president Bush: creating socialist programs, boosting spending, screwing over Israel.