If You Like Your Communist President, You Can Keep Your Communist President

2 Responses to If You Like Your Communist President, You Can Keep Your Communist President

1. Larry Fields says:

   December 14, 2013 at 1:02 am

   As a semi-regular commenter here, I feel entitled to ask a really stooopid question occasionally. Here goes.

   At a small social networking site, I described Obama as a Marxist. Nobody here would question that. I was gobsmacked when one of regular contributers at free-association was surprised by my reasonable claim, and questioned its veracity. And anyone who has passed the Bar Exam is no dummy.

   I can list a few is-consistent-withs, but there are undoubtedly more. Top-down micro-management of our health care system is consistent with Marxism. However that, by itself, is not a conversation-stopper.

   Speaking of economic micro-management, how about Barry’s counterproductive War on Coal?

   Barry’s salami-slicing, anti-gun agenda is consistent with Totalitarianism — which could include either Communism or Fascism. Ditto for his taxpayer-financed personal militia.

   Continuing with, and modifying, Dubya’s war on certain other items in the Bill of Rights is certainly consistent with Totalitarianism — in either of the popular flavors.

   Example: Our wonderful Secretary of the Inferior says she hopes that there are no ‘Deniers’ in her Department. Isn’t the First Amendment wonderful?

   I’ve probably overlooked some specific examples. Can anyone help me out?

   Reply
   • Mike D says:

     December 14, 2013 at 2:14 am

     The way I look at it is, just like a racist can be a racist without doing overtly racist things, a Marxist or Communist can be such without doing overt things. It is a mentality and not something that must be absolutely proven by actions since only those who have free reign can do what they want. Hugo Chavez proved what he was, but he didn’t become so by taking private property, he confiscated private property because he could finally act on what he wanted to do long before that.

     But for examples, my thought is that at every instance where he can choose how much power to give government, Obama takes as much as he can. So he completely took over student loans and cut private companies out. He used TARP to make the banks do what he wanted, such at cutting principal and other things for borrowers. He even forced B of A to fire the CEO. That is also why the banks stopped lending and did everything they could to firm up their balance sheets so they could pay it back. TARP’s intent was to give the banks capital so they could keep lending, but it was used to try to control the banks, so instead of increased lending they reduced it and did everything they could to pay TARP back early.

     On airline delays, there was talk for years of a passenger’s bill of rights. But instead of that happening, Obama instituted fines for long flight delays that the government receives, and not the passenger. The passengers are the ones who are harmed, yet the government gets the fine rather than the passenger getting compensation. If they did this with malpractice lawsuits people would see what a joke that is, but for some reason people cheered this regulation.

     The fine that JP Morgan just agreed to for misleading investors in some securities does not go to those who were injured again, but goes mostly to the government. With some of it going to help homeowners, who again were not the ones injured by buying those securities.

     There have also been many instances where regulatory agencies have coerced companies to do what they want them to do. Such as what HHS just did yesterday by telling insurance companies to accept partial payments but give coverage anyway, and telling private doctors to treat patients where the doctor has been dropped from the insurance pool.

     They also trotted out Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan and other top bankers to say that the government shutdown was bad for the economy, all while the banks are facing billions of dollars of fines.

     Reply