Lol. Funny how a tough question (which really wasn't all that tough) is labeled "moronic" when you don't agree with the precept of it. Biden was asked direct questions about two statements made by members of the ticket he's running on (one by him, one by Obama).
Um... Why are those questions out of bounds?
As to this:
Baron von tarv wrote:
Quote:
The first rule of Marxism is you don't talk about Marxism.
EWrong, the first rule about Marxism is: Understand what Marxism is.
Do you understand what it is? While there's some overlap and confusion, and certainly the term "Marxism" tends to take on a broad meaning in some contexts, it's not wholly inaccurate to use the phrase when discussing a phrase like "spreading the wealth".
Marx' core theories were specific to class struggle between the haves and have-nots. Specifically, those who labor for their livelihood, and those who own the property and businesses they labor for (the proletariat and the capitalists). His entire work is pretty much exactly about the inequity of the distribution of wealth. Moreso, he advocated a process by which the proletariat would cease control of the means of production via a process called socialism (itself an authoritarian process btw), which would then lead to a fair and equitable distribution of wealth and labor called communism.
Marx was unspecific about the details of this process, but merely laid down the broad framework of the forces involved.
When a politician is running on a platform that attempts to get the masses (the proletariat if you will) to give him power in return for a promise that he'll redistribute wealth from the owners of the means of production (the rich) to them (the poor), he's specifically a vehicle of socialism, but *also* following a Marxist methodology.
In a democratic society, that is exactly the method by which the proletariat "cease control" of the means of production. They vote to give the government the power to redistribute the wealth. I'm sorry, while you can quibble over some specific bits of Marxist theory if you wish, it's not incorrect to broadly label what Obama is talking about as "Marxist".
And to those who insist on saying there's no difference between this and other taxes to government programs, you're missing a key point. It's not about the fact that you're taxing (although that's relevant in another context), but why you're taxing. If you're taxing to provide some general infrastructure, that's one thing. But when you're specifically taxing to provide something to just one group and it's sold on the idea that it's rectifying some sort of inequity, then you are following a Marxist agenda. If you are acting on an idea that the rich somehow "owe" that wealth to the poor, you are following a Marxist agenda.
Take a look at the arguments typically appearing whenever we discuss economics on this forum. I think it's pretty clear that those on the left aren't arguing for taxation for programs that benefit everyone equally, but those that somehow even out what they view as already unequal scales. And it's pretty clear that's the same kind of idea that Obama is tapping into with his economic plan. When he says that he'll lower taxes on 95% of the workers, doesn't that strongly imply wealth redistribution? Doubly so when his "tax cuts" are actually "tax credits" for about half of that 95%? Yup. He's buying votes with benefits. And that's the proletariat ceasing control in a democracy...
Quote:
You should try to at least have a passing knowledge of your subject before using it.
Show me that you have a passing knowledge of Marxism then... ;)
