Without term limits, there will be no change. As long as politicians can go to Washington, amass power and wealth, then they have no need to listen to the people. Obama is a Marxist, which is why he will probably only have one term. Unfortunately that is the only good news because Mittens is not too far behind him. Mitt would have signed Obamacare into law with only one little change: he would have called it Romneycare.

Arlo is right, change is at home. I drill it into my kids that wealth is something you achieve, not something distributed to you. Respect is something you earn by keeping the highest value on your word and moral character. Honor is not something you call a judge, rather the sum of your conduct. Etc..

I have 4 (maybe 5 soon) kids, so I feel like I have changed the world at least five fold.

Obama is a Marxist? Are you channeling right-wing talking points on here for us?

He's a Marxist like Ronnie Reagan, I guess:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/1 ... d%3D127377


mikey

Yes, and Reagan and Marx breathed oxygen too... Guess they must agree on everything..

It seems to me there is a huge difference between Marxism and American Socialist Capitalism (of which I think both Obama and Romney are strong proponents of). Reagan was an American Socialist as far as I am concerned but I guess we all have our own definitions.

Agnes mentioned corruption but corruption is just politics. I think paranoia is the one true and consistent political motive that defines mankind.

you are confusing me a bit with that one heraclitis...i think the word corruption fit where i put it. but i suppose paranoia as you say, could factor in as well.

OK, who was the last uncorrupt politician?

oh,,,i think i understand where you are coming from now...the answer to that question is i don't know.

and i don't think it disqualifies what i said.

I was not disqualify, I mean Newt wins the most corrupt politician award hands down.

What I was saying was...name the last politician that did not preach paranoia?

I dunno. I'll pick Ralph Nader........(not really a politician per say, although runs for political office). He can't be bought for any price.

that is an interesting question and something to think about.

i was thinking about the repeal of the glass steagall act with the gram leach bliley act and its connections to the thing that ended up in bailouts, and thinking also about the corporations as personhood thing and how it relates to the buying of politicians.

Are the results and consequences of the interpretations of those legislative changes illegal or corrupt acts? I think most of the activities that led to bail outs and such are generally considered legal. The question is, did these institutions adequately asses and manage the risk of their actions? The answer is obviously no! When the risks turned into nightmare did these institutions accept the full responsibility for their risky practices? Again, no! The question now becomes the bail outs and the devastation of the common man? The act of "safety netting" these corporations for the "common good" is pure American Capitalist Socialism Philosophy as fundamentally preached by such notables as Al Hamilton a long time ago. The slogan "what is good for the money is good for America" wasn't born yesterday! I think everybody agrees that preserving as many assets as possible is a good idea. The question is whose assets are they really? Are they America's assets in a true socialist sense or are they the assets of individuals to be preserved at all cost for the common good? If you answer that question then you know who is responsible for determining how much risk will be tolerated in managing the wealth.

It seems that way to me?

I don't think preserving assets is a good idea at all. Assets are the spoils for the victor in a true capitalistic society. Unfortunately we have gone down the road of picking winners and losers by bailing them out and then you see people blaming capitalism for it. And I agree it is the socialist meddling into the free market that has caused many of the woes we see in capitalism today. This is why it is inherently Marxist. It is the goal of the Marxist to control all elements of a given economy. The failing bailout of GM is classic Marxism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_%28Marxism%29

and i am not saying all laws are good...(as an example, the repeal of the glass steagall act with the gramm leach bliley act seems like it only benefited the big banks, or however you want to call them)
i mean, i wonder what is the motive behind such things as the long effort to repeal something with something else that allows banks to become "too big to fail" and the whole get trickled upon safety net (bailouts) the thing you are saying "american capitalist socialism philosophy".
i am not saying all laws are good...but apparently there needs to be some kind of supervision, regulation...it seems the repeal of the glass steagall act only benefited the big banks ultimately at the rest of our expense. i consider that a bit corrupt.

i hope i am communicating that i do appreciate a lot of what you said in your post.

i am having a little trouble fully understanding what you are saying here...apologies

I am not judging laws as good or bad but I don't believe anyone has actually tested the legality of the interpretation of the Gramm law that might yet destroy the world economy. However, that Gramm law did not happen overnight in 1999. That fellow Gramm went on and on about the tight regulations that were dragging our economy down since the first years of Ronnie Reagan. He argued that the leaders of big money, the economy and the federal reserve had all evolved beyond the kind of mindless profit mad risk taking that led to the depression of the 30's. He argued that constraining our money made us (America) a constrained player in the world around us.

Given what happened the soundness of his argument may now be in doubt!

The safety net was not part of that law. The safety net is part of the American Capitalist Philosophy. The primary rule is that the wealthy must be allowed to preserve their wealth or their "assets" that define them as wealthy if American Capitalism is to survive. That is American Socialist Philosophy in a nutshell. Preserve the wealthy through times good and bad and they will expand the economy for the common good. When the economy contracts, the common man can suffer a little bit as long as the wealth survives.

What distinguishes this from Marxism (a word our friend Jafo throws out a lot) is that Marx argued that that wealth should not be concentrated in the hands of the few but that the "assets" of that wealth should belong to society at large (so you can see why he was so unpopular). Of course nazi socialism agreed that the wealth shall remain in the hands of the elite but that the elite must meet certain racial characteristics and they allow the Fuehrer undisputed control of investment portfolio's.

At least that is the way I see it?

Stalinism was more in line with nazism from what I can tell. I mean, it seems the ultimate five year plan of both Hitler and Stalin was to change the racial characteristics of the Ukraine and the oil fields of the Caucasus, one wanting this area filled with passionate soviets and the other wanting it filled with passionate Germans.

Throw around? I'm sorry, but when a President says "we need to spread the wealth around", that sure sounds Marxist to me.