RAVE THIS if you know that Obama is a rank radical and a communist - intent on destroying the United States.

COMMUNISM
Everyone works, everyone gets paid the same amount, everyone gets taxed the same amount, and the government owns everything and distributes it as it decides what is fair.

SOCIALISM
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources. Socialism is an economic system based on state ownership of capital. NOW THAT WE HAVE A DEFINITION CAN WE GO ON TO THE DISCUSSION? What we have left is to discuss which aspects of these two economic policies Obama embraces either through his speeches and record as a student, community organizer, Senator, and President. Lets look at the legislation he supported although in most instances he voted present rather than going on the record one way or another, why do you suppose he chose to vote in this way so often? Why do you suppose he has stated so often that he believes in income redistrabution? Why then do you suppose that he seems to feel so strongly about having the rich pay higher and higher percentages of their incomes while promoting existing and proposed social and economic entitlement programs? And finally for this session lets discuss Obama Care which is a strong form of income redistrabution and why do you suppose he spent his first term with a fillibuster proof house and senate getting this legislation into law instead of working toward job creation. And rather than working on Immigration and the whole host of other promises he made in his run for the presidency. With a filibuster proof house and senate he could have done anything he wanted but focusted on the single largest form of income redistrabution possible in our current form of a democracy. I think this is a good start. I'm waiting to be dazzeled by your reply since you hold yourself up as a scholar in these matters and wait with baited breath for your answers.

Your definition of Communism is actually pretty close, but your definition of Socialism is not quite as accurate. However, under either of these there is no indication by the actions of this administration that the President is either a socialist or a communist. Quotes from speeches, probably taken out of context, don't count.

First of all, President Obama never had a 'filibuster proof' house and senate. For one thing there is no provision for a filibuster in the House, and the fact you don't know that gives me reservation to even have this discussion with you. In addition, the Senate in his first term was only "filibuster proof' for about four months, broken into two different time periods, and only if you take into consideration the two Independent Senators, one of whom campaigned against the President. You see, Minnesota didn't seat Al Franken until July 7, 2009 because of all the lawsuits the GOP and Norm Coleman filed. Then, the next month Ted Kennedy dies bringing the total back down to 59. Six weeks later Paul Kirk was appointed to fill his spot, but Scott Brown won that seat, and was sworn in on February 4, 2010.

During that time he did get the Healthcare Reform Act passed, but only after being held for ransom by two Democratic Senators, but there is no income redistribution in that bill, unless of course you mean not letting insurance companies drop people when they get sick or refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions - so I don't have a clue what to what legislation you are referring.

Actually, the first major piece of legislation that the President got passed was the Stimulus Bill, which was passed when he didn't have a super majority in the Senate. Republicans Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe voted what was best for the country and not the party line, and it was passed without the need for a filibuster proof majority. However, in an attempt to appease the Republicans, over 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts, which history shows does not create jobs, but the vast majority of them wouldn't vote for it, anyway - and is the biggest reason that the stimulus bill didn't work.

Last but not least the term is not 'baited breath' - which in my mind might be accurate but rather stinky - but rather 'abated breath'.

I guess I shouldn't have pasted the def of Communism and Socialism for dummys, far below your level. I try to keep these somewhat short and simple because most don't want to read that much. Thanks for the regurgitation of the Gov actions. You don't feel a window into thinking and philosophy can be gleened from what a man or woman says when speeking? I don't pick every third word from a speech to determine what someone is saying, I listen to the entire comment and leave the taking out of context to news reporters from both sides. I wonder how that would change your post. Just amusing my self. If you haven't researched Obama to the point that you haven't found these speeches then you haven't done enough research to satisfy my needs. As far as legislative action supporting his philosophy? Aside from voting "PRESENT" for the majority of his time in the Senate; didn't we just pass a tax increase on those who make more? Is that going to go back to the rich or into the gov coffers for redistribution in what ever form it takes. Health Care Affordability Act? Those who don't make the threshold get free healthcaree in the shape of MediCaid. Those who are over the threshold pay and their are eight different tax / fines associated with the law. I don't need to post those here as it is public record. Thus those who have to pay redistribute to those who don't. Wasn't his campaign based on let't get the rich and don't touch my entitlement programs and so on? Is that not what he ran on? Clearly I said that Obama embraces aspects of communism and socialism. In looking at those he would seek out and associated with in school and after were those who preferred certain aspect of these types of government policy. Notice I'm not saying total but aspects of these types of. I don't think Obama is a communist or socialist, but in my perspective it appears to me that he preferrs some type of hybrid blend of democracy and socialistic aspects. GM is now Union and Gov owned just as a single point of reference. It is in the end a point of view and that is mine. If I were you I might feel the same way you do. Based on my life experience I come to a different conclusion. If you find wrongly spelled words or words spelled right but in the wrong context give me a break, my spelling is an evolving skill. Thanks for the point of view as I like it better that "YOUR STUPID" OR "YOUR A HATER" and such. At least you talk substance and I appreciate that. If you answer great if not see you in the next topic.

Medicaid has always been free healthcare for those who's income didn't meet a certain threshold, and has been around for years. Obamacare didn't change that or expand it. What it did do was to put restrictions on health insurers to keep them from unfair practices they had done in the past, expanded the time a dependent child can remain on his parent's insurance and mandated that everyone who chooses not to buy insurance has to pay a small fee to the government. Just for the record, the blueprint for Obamacare came from The Heritage Foundation in response to Clinton's failed attempt to reform healthcare in 1993 (Hillarycare)

GM is a publicly traded company now. It is owned by shareholders, of which the US Government and the UAW both are. However, it is also owned by many other people (you can buy some shares for yourself, if you like) and management are not government employees nor do they take their marching orders from the Obama Administration. If Obama were a Communist then ALL industry and not just GM would be owned by the government, and if he were a Socialist they would have never allowed the company to go public.

What many don't realize is that it is what you described as a "hybrid blend of democracy and socialistic aspects" is what enabled us to recover from the Great Depression and become a world economic power in the post WWII era - and forms of 'collectivism' have not only been used and embraced by this country in the past, the results have been proven to be more effective than any other options tried.

You and I will have to disagree on that, I believe that free enterprise and those at our level do a much better job tailoring programs to our needs and if we don't like what we are getting then we use someone with a good reputation for doing a good job. Big Government one size fits all doesn't do it for me. I believe that competition brings better products and services and the government has no competitors.
I have the pleasure of working in the health care delivery system for the last 35 years through my business that offers Inpatient Physical and Medical Rehabilitation Services along with limited Long Term Care for those with chronic illness that can't be managed at home.
Short Term is Commercial Insurance and Medicare. Some Rehab and most of the Long Term Care has been Medicaid (MediCal here in California). For those on MediCal they cannot have more than $800 dollars in cash and can only own a home and a car if they are likely to return to home. Also if they have a spouse living at home. The others have been yonger people who have congenital disabilities or those from accidents, If they come into money above the $800. then they have to spend it down either by buying stuff for them selves or going private until they again have less than the threshold. In Obama Care it will be 133% of the proverty rate that will qualify for free insurance. The current proverty rate by the HHSD starts at $11,599 for a single individual and up to $38,500 for families. There will be 11 milion in 2014 who will automatically be enrolled onto MediCal through providers like HUMANA, Health List and many more. With in the next year another 11 million will be directed to these same programs through the Health Exchanges. 22 million will be added to the Medicaid / MediCal with in two years. Yes I agree with you in that many will be families or individuals that chose not to have plans who will be required and they will be at 9.5% of gross familiy income. I as an employer will have to offer plans and determine or have deterimin for me this number and offer plans to my employees and they will have the amounts taken from their check. We will pay 50% of the employees portion. Up untill now many have opted to receive higher wages rather than take the insurance. That will help finance their programs but large misconception is that the cost of premiums will go down as a result of more buying into the system. In information sessions with our trade association we are learning how this will all play out and how to transition as a business. And as I said earlier there are 8 taxes enclosed into the Health Care Affordability Act and you can find what they are your self as I have posted a way to long responce already. You will see much longer waiting times if you have been covered and eventually carriers and the Government will have to determine what and who is covered for what. Will it all work out? We will see. One thing that is clear in my thinking is that this is a massive income redistribution from those who can pay to those who can't. Is it right to cover everyone ? Should we? Maybe. I think we need co pays for every one as in our experience those who don't over use the system. Anyway take care.

No, it is absolutely unsustainable. Look at the trends, Once the wealthy take control of the government (through corporations) Government does not run for the people. Problem is you think it started in 2008. In reality it started way before that. Who do you think wars are waged for? Not for democracy. Nor for the "People" its for for corporations. (WW1,WW2, NAM,) All for corporate entities. the FACT is that Most empires self destruct. as far as our laws, yes there are laws on the books but (i.e. fracking, GMO labeling...) who do the laws protect? Our environment....or our children,,,,no they protect the corporation to the point that they are not responsible for the bad things that they bring.....(health wise, environment wise, economy wise (look at BP in the gulf) Your dismissal of any of these issues shows your immature self centered view of the world. Shift your focus and see what is really going on. Conquest, consolidation, expansion, degeneration and conquest, this was and is the pattern of history. I am through doing your homework here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?...

and finally look up Smedley Butler....


and as far as the typo.....don't be a douche.

So, who has stopped this "one" man from breaking the laws of the Constituion or even force him to be properly vetted when he ever entered politics. Your head is buried in the sand. You have assumed incorrectly about my sources. I aim for bi-partisan or at least neutral sites. Sorry, to have to disabuse you of your supposition in that quarter. You are an expert in hot air, but don't know the facts. OK, I can live with that. I have total recall that the stimulus package created jobs in China, Finland, Brazil, etc, etc ... Now, now, let's remain civil, or is that above your abilities? Jobs might have been going overseas, but it wasn't done with taxpayer money via the stimulus package. It was going because unions and other greedy entities couldn't compete with foreign goods because of low labor costs. That's a little simplistic, but I figure I have to keep it simple for you. Because you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist? It's all over the news, so I guess you are blind or don't pay attention to any news regardless of source. Oh, it has to be some left-wing bully crap source. Oh, right, Obamass wasn't going to allow lobbyists in his government either, was he? Another one of his lies.

Other than being an immature, ideological fool, you really aren't worth answering, but when I see a hurt animal on the side of the road, I try to help. In your case, I think your injuries have been fatal. All you like to do is bad-mouth, whine and complain, as well as pee in your pants. It's a good thing your panties are in a wad, that way it won't run down your leg.

http://www.buygold.com/articl...

http://cnsnews.com/blog/bob-d...

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/ne...