Readers' forum: Obama no Marxist


Return To Article
  • S2
    Aug. 5, 2009 4:20 a.m.


    Obama is incrementally using the worst elements from the two greatest economic catastrophes of the 20th Century: fascism and socialism. Consequently, we're moving further away from the most successful economic system in the history of humankind: capitalism.

    The dumbed-down population, complacent via the affluence of capitalism, ignorant of history, is instead ‘ga-ga’ over idealism of ‘change.’ Failing to see the real direction of ‘change,’ it will be a fait accompli by the time when choice is gone.

  • S2
    Aug. 5, 2009 4:19 a.m.

    Socialism features a planned economy distributing the work and guaranteeing an equal and just livelihood to everyone. Re-education forces a sense of community in place of the glorification of power and success of capitalism.

    In Italy and Germany fascism merged the self-interests of despotic, single-party rulers with large corporations for whom war offered big profits.

    Obama’s direction for the banking and automobile industries sure quacks like socialism, as Ford looks to become the last free-enterprise American car company.

    So there is our truly happy home brought to us by the czars of the federal government who know just what we need. Enlightened public servants will do our consumption planning for us, to include telling us when we are sick, and when we should die.

  • re:John
    July 28, 2009 12:58 p.m.

    your comment is silly John. Obama has taken BIG GOVERNMENT in America to an entirely new level never before seen or even dreamed of ... and there is more to come. Every democratic government provides basic services to its people at a reasonable level. Every democratic government also provides for its basic defense against foreign aggression. Obama however has changed the game and is attempting to FORCE a government control of every aspect of our lives which is completely contrary to the beliefs of our founding fathers (see John Adams views on big government). Obama socialized health care plan is a perfect example which forces ALL AMERICANS onto government "rationed" health care while eliminating the healthy competition of private providers. The same thing has happened in Canada and Great Britain and their advise to America - DON'T DO IT!!!!! Obama is a socialist with his inspiration admittedly coming from Karl Marx of all people!!! Which other president can you name in US history who was "inspired" by the founder of communism???? Fortunately the Obama facade is beginning to fade nation wide as more and more Americans see this man for the fraud that he is!!

  • John
    July 28, 2009 12:30 p.m.

    This whole discussion is so silly. How long have we had the public school system around? I got my property tax bill the other day and I have to pay $2K to send other people's kids to school. How is that not socialist? So is public school evil?

    How about the library? The freeway? Parks? Are all these "government owned/taxpayer subsidized" properties bad? If so, how?

    If Obama is a socialist for taxing to redistribute the wealth, then Bush was a tyrant for taxing to send our money overseas to fight a silly war to redeem his father's good name.

  • hear no evil see no evil
    July 28, 2009 12:22 p.m.

    After reading Erik's comments I am reminded of the monkey with his ears and eyes covered - hear no evil see no evil. Liberals are finding it more and more difficult to distance their great Zeus teleprompter king from socialism. Obama is MOST CERTAINLY a socialist Erik - sorry man. Obama was inspired by the writings of Karl Marx (from Obama's biography). You never read of Obama being influenced by Washington or Madison - just Marx. Obama's understanding of American history is sadly lacking as evidence from many of his statements over the past several months and it seems like he carries a BIG chip on his shoulder regarding what he does know of our history and has made it his personal mission to change America into what he deems to be a more reasonable, socialist state. Obama is all about BIG GOVERNMENT and having government be in total control of every aspect of our lives from health care to the banking industry. Our founders had the exact OPPOSITE view of democracy (see John Adams) and viewed big government as the enemy to freedom. Finally, the Obama facade is beginning to fade nation wide - thankfully!!!

  • So What?
    July 28, 2009 11:43 a.m.

    Socialism and Communism take away our freedoms. They maybe different but they accomplish the same goal.

  • re: to 9:04
    July 3, 2009 2:41 p.m.

    exactly. that's what i said. "economy was bad and he talked the sweet talk" regardless of who's fault it is. you can blame obama for the economy just as much as bush because not only were the dems in control of both houses of congress when this mess started, but obama was serving in the senate. the point is, he won because he capitalized on the economy.

  • Wow
    July 2, 2009 6:22 p.m.

    Lot's of emotion out there. How about some well-reasoned arguments? Typical DesNews readers.

  • sad day
    July 2, 2009 7:42 a.m.

    The government is doing a poor job in handling Medicare, so what does Obama intend to do? Create a national healthcare system that will mimic medicare and cost individuals enough to make the poor more poor but with equally poor medical care while the wealthy, likely including Obama, will maintain private healthcare superior to the government run program. Canada has a two tiered program in which a person can wait 8 months for an mri or use private coverage and receive the same mri in 2 days. When I got sick with strep in Germany, I used my cousin's private doctor for immediate treatment.

  • LOL
    July 2, 2009 7:33 a.m.

    Obama "forced no auto manufacturer to take the bailout" is like stating "nobody forced the starving in Africa to take the rice." We are moving TOWARDS more government controlled businesses under Obama. And that is defined by what word?

    -Recovering LIberal

  • You're right.
    July 1, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    Obama is NOT a Marxist.

    However, he is unquestionably a socialist--like Hitler.

  • To Anonymous @ 1:42 pm
    July 1, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    Can't you come up with anything other than empty fallacies to support your position? Name-calling is childish and adds nothing to the discussion.

  • Karl Marx
    July 1, 2009 11:04 a.m.

    Obama is not Marxist--he is a fascist.

    What other political system allows publice ownership of business yet the government retains control of their actions....??

    Things that make you go....

  • To Anon | 1:42
    June 30, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    Maybe it is too late for Neocons to save the country. The Paleolibs counted 'til they won in Minnesota, just like in Washington State four years ago.

    That's the new Paleolib/ACORN agenda -- keep counting 'til Democrats win.

    Kinda reminds me of Iran.

  • Obama Republican
    June 30, 2009 12:17 p.m.

    @Marxist=socialist, let me understand, Obama is a Marxist because he confiscates peoples money. Are you alluding to taxation? So you are saying Republicans do not tax and spend, are you sure you want to go down that road? Conservatives confiscated my $$ for the last 8 years, or did I miss the tax loop holes?

    "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need", funny u use a quote that sounds just like King Ben in Mosiah. (like many LDS you might not live as KB suggested)

    Last time I checked it was a Communist China that was buying our debt to bail out bad judgment by the Noble Capitalist who sold our country for profit.

    I am sure in your Capitalist country we would be so well off. Maybe we should just shut down Public Schools, Public Colleges, Public Libraries, Public Highways, Public Parks, Public everything else and return to a country where there is no middle class just rich and poor.

    The end result of un checked capitalism is slave type labor for sheer Profit! Where do you think calls for social justice came from?

  • re: To 9:04 am
    June 30, 2009 11:34 a.m.

    "the reason President Obama won is because the last administration nearly drove our economy and democracy into the ground.

    People finally woke up."
    i fail to see the logic of that argument. the last adminstration was over. no matter who won, the last administration would still be over. you keep blaming bush for obama's victory but that is not the fact. his campaign was basicly "vote for me and the rich will lose their money and i will give it to you." is there really still doubt that this is what happened? there is other politically logical explination.

  • Robin Hood & Obama
    June 30, 2009 9:27 a.m.

    President Obama's mantra of taxing "the rich" to fund his government programs sounds an awful lot like Robin Hood: robbing the rich to give to the poor.

    Unfortunately for Messrs. Hood and Obama, capitalism is based on the idea of equal opportunity for all, as opposed to Marxism/communism/socialism, which is based on the idea of equal results for all.

  • Thomas Jefferson
    June 30, 2009 6:05 a.m.

    The depth and breadth of people's ignorance and lack of understanding never ceases to amaze me.

    As long as the majority insists on voting Republican or Democrat, nothing will change.

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

  • Oliver
    June 30, 2009 6:04 a.m.

    To Ha!!!!!

    I am not JEM, nor did I grow up in East Germany, but I know enough about it to say, that your precious life under Barack Obama is so much better compared to that of former East Germans.

    Here are some examples:

    - The "Planwirtschaft" (planned economy) meant that econmy was heavily regulated by the government in such a way, that government decided what was produced and how much of it was to be produced.

    - Freedom of choice concerning education and career was limited by government. (Today in America it is limited through poverty)

    - Critics of the system were imprisoned or shot

    - People who wanted to leave the country were imprisoned or shot

    - The Stasi was a secret police that kept a watchful eye on your every move. Your neighbor could have been a Stasi agent, ready to betray you to the government if you were not in line.

    Those among other things make America a free, not socialistic country, even under Barack Obama. Reaching out to less fortunate is a good thing.

  • Oliver
    June 30, 2009 4:38 a.m.

    @Marxist=socialist (previous page) and in general--

    The problem with your statement is, that most poor people are NOT lazy, irresponsible or ineffective. They are poor, because they grew up in less fortunate circumstances. Further, you point out the difference between Obama and communists in your very own statement: The fact, that nobody is supposed to advance in communism, only the leading elite.

    It is a puzzle, how especially members of the church resent the idea of giving to the less fortunate. Isn't that what Christ has taught? Joseph Smith's idea of living together was actually very close to socialism--The united order. Like you say, it was very much about "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need".

    Social medicine e.g. has nothing whatsoever to do with socialsim or communism. It is a way of taking care of our brothers and sisters.

  • Capitalism in action!
    June 30, 2009 12:39 a.m.

    The near-nationalization of banks, the take over of GM and handing it over to the unions, the current efforts to take over health care, the ridiculous power grab that is cap and tax, trying to "spread the wealth around." Oh yeah, that's capitalism in action.

    The writer obviously doesn't know his definitions either, because Fuhrer Obama is proceeding down the same path as Castro, Chavez and his other marxist buddies. He is doing it with greater stealth and more lies, but he is doing it all the same.

  • Obama IS
    June 29, 2009 7:51 p.m.

    . . . a marxist socialist. OK. It's not illegal. So why does he, and why do Paleolibs spend so much time running and hiding from the appelation? If they think to fool us Neocons [I love that term, by the way, it makes me sound as hip as Carl Rove, and maybe, just a little dangerous!], it won't work.

    Maybe it will work on the obliviots, though.

    Note that all presidents since FDR have foolishly adopted one or more socialist principles. Call it "New Deal," or "New Frontier," or "War on Poverty," or even "Compassionate Conservative." All amount to financing handouts for a coveted constituency by stealing from others.

    That's what socialists do best.

    And that's precisely what the Obama crowd intends to do -- finance one or another scheme calculated to maintain allegiance of some constituency by stealing from another.

    It's called politics. And it stinks. Always has. Always will.

    All we can do is resist as best we can and pray for an end to politics.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 6:10 p.m.

    Nobody cares about what the modern American conservative movement is up to trying to sway American voters (except for perhaps Utah or Idaho).

    I thought EVERYBODY knew that by now.

  • Hope Obama fails!
    June 29, 2009 6:04 p.m.

    I don't care if you call Obama's policies Marxist or socialist. Whatever they are, they are destroying our economy and our freedom and forcing everyone onto the government welfare plantation.

    I hope Obama fails!

  • impossible to do
    June 29, 2009 6:02 p.m.

    I try hard to find something good to say about the modern American conservative movement as displayed by the postings above - but ...

  • RE: bye-bye Limbaughites
    June 29, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    Clearly you only read and get your information from one source,

    Isn't that the definition of biased, indoctrinated, etc?

    And NOT well rounded?

    Perhaps you should do a little self-examination, and a some reading and more listening.

  • bye-bye Limbaughites
    June 29, 2009 5:10 p.m.

    Reading some of the above postings from some obviously unhappy conservatives (aren't they all?)
    it must truly be dark times for these sad and lonely people (what would you expect when they force-feed themselves on Rush O'Hannity 24/7?)
    And they can't understand that even though these are tough economic times, the majority of America is full of hope and joy and rapidly leaving them behind in the dust.

  • Ha!!!
    June 29, 2009 5:04 p.m.

    Those claming that Obama isn't a Marxist OK, until he forcable begins supression, I'll stipulate.

    Those claming he isn't a socialist, like JEM, define it for me sweetheart, what is a the defenition of socialist? You claim we don't understand what it means. You claim that you're from a socialist country or that you were born there. How old were you when you came here? How long did you live there? How much did you understand in your youth? When did you live in East Germany?

    A lot depends on when you lived there whether you were living under socialism, fascism, or communism. You might want to be sure of the time before you answer. Might I suggest reading a few books to enlighten your mind as to your hero's socialistic tendencies.
    -Road To Serfdom
    -Who Killed the Constitution
    -Liberty and Tyranny
    -A Politically Incorrect Guide to the Consitution
    Or might you be affraid of truth like your secular progressive group. Do you believe the constitution needs to be interprated or ammended? Answer that question if you dare but then you true colors will be shown.

  • @ "Anonymous | 1:42 p.m."
    June 29, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    Anonymous | 1:42 p.m.

    It's NEVER "Too Late". There's always 2010 and 2012. That's the beauty of our system of government. People like YOU can't just say, "It's over now, we won the election so we're taking over and running ruoughshod crushing anyone who gets in our way". Because people and parties who rule like that don't last long in American politics.

    Keep up your haughty high-and-mighty attitude and you will have plenty of crow to eat in 2010.

    The boasting of the Obama-ites has resulted in very high expectations of this Congress and President. If they don't deliver, the cost could be quite dramatic in the comming years.

    I'm just sayin... just beating your chest because you won the election, but then not achieving any positive results before the next election... is usually a recipe for disaster.

  • Conservative treason?
    June 29, 2009 2:39 p.m.

    The suggestion that conservatives are treasonous for wanting Fuhrer Obama to fail in remaking this country into a fascist dictatorship and selling our national sovereignty to China through debt is laughable. The stench of liberal hypocrisy overpowers anything you are trying to say, as RedShirt aptly shows.

  • @ "1:15 p.m." poster
    June 29, 2009 2:18 p.m.

    Tax the poor to benefit wealthy | 1:15 p.m.

    My point wasn't nearly as complex as you made it out to be. It's simple...

    1. Taxes are necessary and needed.

    2. It doesn't matter if I like the way they are used or not. That's NOT the criteria for them being considered "Redistribution of wealth" or not. When the government takes income from one person to give it to another... THAT'S redistribution of wealth (what Obama proudly proclaimed was going to be his policy if elected).

    Bottom line... I'm not an anti-tax kinda guy. Just an anti-redistribution of wealth kinda guy.

    I don't mind funding the government and it's critical programs. But I am against the Obama proposal to (as he put it on the campaign trail), "Take the income from some people and spread it around". That's NOT government's job.

  • Corporate conmen
    June 29, 2009 1:53 p.m.

    Most government welfare goes to private corporations.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 1:42 p.m.

    It's too late neocons.
    You've nastiness is there each and every day and all one as to do is tune is to Rush O'Hannity to see why this great country has rejected the "all about me" conservative values.

  • RedShirt
    June 29, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    To "conservatives are treasonous | 11:36 a.m." let me remind you of what liberals were saying in Aug 2006. Fox News did a poll where they asked "Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?"

    51% of those that identified themselves are Democrats said they wanted Bush to fail. So, if saying you want the President to fail is treason, you better round up 51% of the Democrat party.

  • Obamites
    June 29, 2009 1:21 p.m.

    Under free mkt economy the rich get richer and the poor get less poor......

    Under Obama...the govt just gets more of the money while rich get poorer and poor go hungry.

    Unemployment at 9%+ and rising to 10...

    Nice JOB libs...try blaming that on Bush in 2012!

    Obama new slogan "following in the footsteps of jimmy cart

  • Tax the poor to benefit wealthy
    June 29, 2009 1:15 p.m.

    Re: @ "Bleeding Heart Liberal

    "Having minimal taxes to fund public/government services and obligations... is a necessary thing."

    In other words. Having taxes for those things that you want and which will benefit you is a necessary thing but if taxes are used for anything that does not benefit you then it isn't a good thing.

    "But when you go on the campaign trail and state clearly that your goal is to take the money the rich, who don't really need (or deserve it) and "Spread it around to the little people"... THEN you're talking "Redistribution of wealth"."

    You mean like paying for a road to a business that I never go to so that they can make money and your fat and ugly family can shop there?

    "There's a difference. It's in the intent."

    Your intent is to take my money and use it for the benefit of your family but object when any of your money is used for anything else.

    The difference seems to be: "everything I want I get but if I don't want it then you can't have it. You will pay for me to make a profit

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 12:57 p.m.

    We tried contracted our military in Iraq. We have contractors who can't account for billions to show for it.

    The largest redistribution of wealth in American history started with Reagan. Money was redistributed from the middle class to the wealthy. In Amer 70% of the wealthy got their money not from work or being inventive, they got a parental welfare check.

  • @ "Bleeding Heart Liberal | 12:4
    June 29, 2009 12:55 p.m.

    "Bleeding Heart Liberal | 12:44 p.m."

    A graduated income tax is not necessarily redistribution of wealth. Taxes are a necessary evil. Having minimal taxes to fund public/government services and obligations... is a necessary thing. But when you go on the campaign trail and state clearly that your goal is to take the money the rich, who don't really need (or deserve it) and "Spread it around to the little people"... THEN you're talking "Redistribution of wealth".

    There's a difference. It's in the intent.

  • Bleeding Heart Liberal
    June 29, 2009 12:44 p.m.

    If Obama is a socialist because he believes in fiscal policies that redistribute wealth, then so were Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Dwight Eisenhower, and a whole host of other conservative politician that said nothing about the graduated income tax. That tax is the principal method for "redistributing" wealth (along with the the estate tax (death tax for you right wing idealogs).

    If you truly hate "socialism" then I suggest you start a movement to privatize all existing "socialist" elements in the country. These include, Police and Fire departments, Public Schools, Public lands including national parks, the US Military establisment, Public tax supported libraries, all public hospitals, including those who treat the military and military veterans.

    Do we have "creaping" socialism in this country" Get a clue right wingers, we are already a nasty, nasty, socialist country. And, I for one wish we were just a little more nasty so that 46 million people could have access to basic medical care, including innocent small children who can't help that they were born to parents with limited financial means. Bleeding heart liberal? Yes and darn proud of it!

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 12:21 p.m.

    I'm a liberal, but if 11:50 a.m. commentor is right - WHERE IS MY MONEY?!

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 12:08 p.m.

    People are liberal by nature.

    Hatred is a learned response fostered by the no-change conservatives in power.

  • Cosmo
    June 29, 2009 12:03 p.m.

    Re:conservatives/treasonous; Spoken like a true Marxist/Fascist!

  • Writer doesn't know
    June 29, 2009 11:50 a.m.

    The writer apparently doesn't know the meaning of the words either.

    These comments board are worthless because they are dominated by paid liberal hacks.

  • conservatives are treasonous
    June 29, 2009 11:36 a.m.

    Conservatives and their movement want the president of the United States of America to fail. It's all they talk about and are trying everything thing they can in their daily propaganda to do so.
    They make no bones about it and preach their revolution to each other every day.
    This is clearly treason and treason is against the Constitution.

  • @ "RedShirt | 9:27 a.m."
    June 29, 2009 11:29 a.m.

    RedShirt | 9:27 a.m.

    You got my point exactly.

    I don't think we are a city-of-Enoch type society. And we are NOT being lead by the savior nor even a prophet who is lead by someone who is perfect.

    Some may disagree, but Obama is NOT the savior nor is he perfected. If we tried Communism or it's little sister "Socialism" at this point in America... It would fail miserably. We want control of our own lives. People don't trust the government enough (yet) to turn over control of their lives to them (I hope).

  • RedShirt
    June 29, 2009 11:12 a.m.

    To "conservatives go too far. | 10:25 a.m. " it is mroe than just the last 8 years of government that are to blame. Conservatives haven't trusted government to do the right thing since before 1776. It was because of the power of the Brittish empire that we had the Articles of Confederation until June 21, 1788 when the Constitution was established. The US was looking for the minimal amount of government required to maintain order.

    FYI, it was because of the Brittish government that the Declaration of Independance was written and we went to war.

  • @Everyone calling obama
    June 29, 2009 11:02 a.m.

    a communist or socialist. Do you know what these words mean? Do you actually know what a communist is? Have you ever studied Karl Marx? Or are you throwing out a buzz word because Sean Hannity told you too?

  • To 9:04 am
    June 29, 2009 10:59 a.m.

    You said, "the only reason he won the election was because the economy was bad and he talked the sweet talk."

    No the reason President Obama won is because the last administration nearly drove our economy and democracy into the ground.

    People finally woke up.

  • RE: John Robert Mallernee
    June 29, 2009 10:58 a.m.

    REally? you bring it down to the Nazi factor with pathetic evidence. Give me a break. Maybe get out of the retirement home once in a while and see whats really going on.

  • Ben Grimm
    June 29, 2009 10:55 a.m.

    re: Oh Please | 10:10 a.m. June 29, 2009

    As a Marxist of the Groucho persuasion and Libertarian, you take that back.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 10:52 a.m.

    Obama forced NO auto manufacturer to take government loans ("bailout money"). None. He forced NO company CEOs to resign. Not a single one. Obama never forced anyone at any time to take government bailout money. Those companies that CHOSE to take that money did so of their own accord. Obama doesn't have the power or authority to do the things you radical conservative idiots accuse him of doing!

    Until you Glenn-Beck roadies get a clue and educate yourselves, you will continue to blabber nonsense and lies to each other while the world moves on without you. Move to your own private Idaho and let the rest of us actually do something of value!

  • Mike
    June 29, 2009 10:51 a.m.

    I agree, he's not a Marxist. But he is a Facist/Socialist.

  • Re: "ANONYMOUS 9:11 AM"
    June 29, 2009 10:48 a.m.


    No, the Armed Forces Retirement Home, which houses military retirees and disabled war veterans, is NOT funded by tax payers.

    I urge you to do an Internet search for "ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME", or for, "UNITED STATES SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S HOME" (its previous name).

    The Soldiers' Home was founded by a Congressional trust fund, using ransom money Mexico City paid to General Winfield Scott during the Mexican War to keep from sacking and looting the conquered city, a common practice at that time.

    Since then, a small deduction has been taken from each soldier's monthly pay to support the Home, plus all fines and forfeitures resulting from courts-martial or non-judicial punishment also goes to support the Home.

    The Naval Home was taxpayer supported, but when they were combined with the Soldiers' Home, that ended, and sailors and marines now contribute from their monthly pay, also.

    Medical care is provided by Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

    We have our own national cemetery, administered by Arlington National Cemetery.

    Thank you.

    John Robert Mallernee
    Armed Forces Retirement Home
    Washington, D.C. 20011-8400

  • Obama Hater
    June 29, 2009 10:43 a.m.

    Marxist? Probably!!

    Jobs in america? over 50% are Govt Jobs with some 40% Private...

    Under Reagan....Under 38% were Govt Jobs with over 60% Private...

    Communism is coming...unless we vote out the communist!

  • conservatives go too far.
    June 29, 2009 10:25 a.m.

    "...conservatives have little faith in the government" says neocon RedShirt.

    Can't say I blame him.

    That last 8 years of neocon governing and going too far has almost ruined this fine country.

  • donald
    June 29, 2009 10:20 a.m.

    looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck... it may just be a duck

  • Oh Please
    June 29, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    Most of the Obama haters on this thread are Marxists. Groucho Marxists.

  • You might hat obama
    June 29, 2009 9:58 a.m.

    But at least know what your talking about. Obama isn't a Marxist. Read the his books about economics. What obama is doing is nothing like marxism or socialism. You might not like him. But if you know what you talking about people might actually listen to what you are saying. But saying he is a socialist or a communist when less that 1% of our industry is under government control is silly.

  • RedShirt
    June 29, 2009 9:55 a.m.

    To "Anonymous | 9:33 a.m." conservatives have full faith in the American people to do the right thing. However, conservatives have little faith in the government to get things fixed correctly or without creating even more problems.

  • Captain Kirk
    June 29, 2009 9:53 a.m.

    @ Capitalism = Freedom? | 6:36 a.m. June 29, 2009

    Capitalism is a natural result of freedom.

    The truth is more that large corporations use government to block competition.

    Your example of the auto industry is flawed.
    The technology is not yet viable for large scale use. That is why Electric/Hydrogen cars have failed. Everyone wants to see some conspiracy ... but the truth is that the cars cost too much and don't drive far enough for most consumers to want them yet.
    Even the Hybrid value proposition is iffy.

    I think we will eventually get there. But it is not quite ready.

    Also if we suddenly all switched to electric vehicles tomorrow ... we would have shortages of electricity. The energy has to be created somewhere and infrastructure needs to be created.

  • CougarKeith
    June 29, 2009 9:52 a.m.

    I like what RSP said, Individual responsibility was the deal in this country until FDR came along. YOU, YOUR FAMILY and your Friends helped each other and the needy! Someone like me who was on disability helped out in ways they could! They farmed some, they babysat, cooked, cleaned, took care of the kids, worked at home the best they could, did what they could and it worked out. People looked out for one another! Now, "Get Disability, Then you can manage". Family goes on their merry way! It's called Spoiled selfish and irresponsible! Leave it to the government! I'd rather have lived in the 30's times before Social Security with the medical advancements we have now! I would be in better shape than I am now! My family would be closer (Extended), and life would be better for them! Probably better for me too! This has made me think, FDR was a good president, but frankly, he started this whole Socialist Thing! It has made a good thing in the beginning grow to a horrible monster which is now destroying our country! I love this nation, but at the same time I weep for her!

  • CougarKeith
    June 29, 2009 9:41 a.m.

    Karl Marx wasn't a "Criminal" for his ideals of "Government"? Obama is NOT A COMMUNIST, He IS HOWEVER A SOCIALIST! He wants to "Transfer Wealth" from the rich to "Spread The Wealth" among everyone, A SOCIALIST IDEAL! He wants to have the Government Run Health Care: Universal Coverage furnished by GOVERNMENT IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! General Motors is run by the Government on it's board of directors, taking away PRIVATE INDUSTRY and putting it in the hands of Government: That is SOCIALIZING BUSINESS IN AMERICA! AIG and other banks being forced to follow ORDERS and Have Government Own Stock and Have Say In Policy is Taking Partial Control of Banks, and Partial Control of ALL BANKS is CONTROL OF BANKS or SOCIALIZING THE BANKING SYSTEM! I am sorry but OBAMA IS A MARXIST! He won't admit it because it's a "Swear Word" in American Mainstream, but everything he is trying to do is "MARXIST" and has "Marxist" Ideals! Barack Obama is in no unwavering terms a "MARXIST"! That is not calling him a criminal, it is just labeling his politics and his agenda. It's fair and balanced opinion based on his actions! He's Marxist!

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 9:33 a.m.

    You don't have to pass an intelligence test to be a Fox News watcher or to listen to talk radio. These people love to name call. The nastier sounding the name, the better.

    Obama made his wealth in the free market selling books.

    One day he's a socialist. Then a Marxist and even a fascist. Like Palin, this speaks volumes about conservatives and they aren't educated enough to see the message they are transmitting.

    In, eight grade, I was taught the socialism is government control of business. Fascism is business controlling government.

    The Nazi's used slave labor as workers in Mercedes plants. Marx made people the workers for the state.

    The American government nationalized industry during the war. Did it remain nationalized? No. Why? Because capitalism is in American's DNA.

    It's conservatives who don't have faith in the American people. What is a nation? It's people.

  • RedShirt
    June 29, 2009 9:27 a.m.

    To "Nothing wrong with Marxism | 8:48 a.m." assuming you believe in the Bible, there is one instance where a population was able to willingly share everything. If you look up the story of the City of Enoch, they were able to share the wealth and eliminate poverty. THe trick was that they were led by a prophet, not elected officials. They were led by God, through a prophet.

  • KJB
    June 29, 2009 9:17 a.m.

    Thanks for writing, Erik, but your rationality and common sense are lost on a crowd like this one. The typical DN reader is the perfect example of Stephen Colbert's "truthiness."

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 9:11 a.m.

    Mr.Mallernee, do you pay for your stay at the Armed Forces retirement home or does our National Socialist government?

  • to: Anonymous | 6:51 a.m.
    June 29, 2009 9:04 a.m.

    here we go again. don't you dems just love throwing that argument here in utah? the united order is a perfect society in which one chooses to live in and is governed by god. if there was such a thing as perfect human beings then maybe we can talk mrxist, but we don't. obama is far from perfect, and despite you defense of your "savior" president, the majorty of america does not support marxism, even the majority of those who voted for obama. i agree completly with Nothing wrong with Marxism | 8:48 a.m. June 29, 2009 above. obama is a marxist and the only reason he won the election was because the economy was bad and he talked the sweet talk. if he had said he was a marxist, he wouldn't have come anywhere near the white house.

  • Nothing wrong with Marxism
    June 29, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    There's nothing wrong with Marxism. It's just another economic theory. It would work too, if implemented perfectly and if the people in that society were perfect, selfless and only cared about the common good and not their own familie's welfare.

    Problem is... there hasn't been a population yet in the world that can live it perfectly. Somebody (usually in the government) always thinks their family deserves more than another family and they accquire it and then other people covet what he has and want it for their family, so unrest and displeasure starts and the black market grows until the mafia controls the goods and services people want and what the government dols out to the people is considered shody and second-class and the system breaks down. People get tired of working harder in the hopes of improving their familie's condition, just to realise that their family only benefits from that extra work if they can find a dishonest way to hide that income from the government.

    Check his background Obama_fans! He was raised by guys who embraced the marxist theory (his college advisors). Read Obama's writings. Check his mentor's background.

  • Crusader
    June 29, 2009 8:33 a.m.

    Tell me again why the Danes rate as the happiest people in the world?

  • RedShirt
    June 29, 2009 8:20 a.m.

    To "Capitalism = Freedom? | 6:36 a.m." yes, capitalism does equal freedom. If the government decides that it will produce all automobiles in the US. Do you have a choice? How about if the government takes over health insurance and taxes you for your insurance preminums, do you have a choice to be covered by health insurance any more? If the government takes over all banking institutions and mandates interest rates and minimum qualifications for loans, is there any choice left to make?

    What you are forgetting is that freedom requires that you have choices. Freedom is lost once you eliminate choices.

    If, as you say, "OLIGOPOLY reduced our freedom and hurt consumers." What will happen when we have a government mandated/supported/owned monopoly?

  • Lew Jeppson
    June 29, 2009 8:06 a.m.

    Part of the problem is that few know who Marx was. Marx was a philosophy PhD of the continent who was an expat in Britain for most of his life. He believed he solved the riddle of capitalist accumulation with his theory of surplus value which was largely based on Ricardo's labor theory of value. He attempted to answer the question - in a system which mostly sees the exchange of equilavents, from whence come profits? His answer? Surplus value. To Marx human labor is everything. Labor is that unique commodity which can create more value than is necessary to sustain it. This excess is surplus value which is the source of profits and capital. He anticpated the efficiency of capitalism.

    Marx was in fact a western economist, the last of the classical economists. To understand Marx one must live in a capitalist system. The Chinese Communists and the Soviet economists understood Marx not at all.

    Marx had nothing directly to do with either the 1917 revolution in Russia or the rise of Mao in China.

    Marx is still worth study because he deals upfront with the relationship of labor with capital.

  • Re: Marxist=socialist
    June 29, 2009 7:53 a.m.

    "Obama believes he is justified in confiscating money from one person and redistributing it to someone else= what Marxists and socialists do!"

    What do you think taxes in any form are? Taxes take money from people and use it for other purposes. So if that's what makes Obama a marxist and socialist, then all of our presidents have been socialists and we've been a socialist country for a long, long time.

  • To michaelh
    June 29, 2009 7:42 a.m.

    "Obama is a corporatist. He was raised by communists and fed nothing but Communism."

    That's easily the silliest thing I've read in the paper today.

    Are you saying that Harvard Law School teaches its students "nothing but Communism?"

  • @language 6:51 a.m.
    June 29, 2009 7:25 a.m.

    You're right. The far-right has also hijacked and corrupted the word "conservative" to mean the views held by radical far-right authoritarian extremists. True conservatives are now considered to be moderates. Sad.

  • Anonymous
    June 29, 2009 6:51 a.m.

    To "Maxist=socialist", if they are the same, throw in United Order as well. My, the nut cases are out early today....

  • language
    June 29, 2009 6:49 a.m.

    Whomever controls the language - controls the world.

    The far-right has made large enrodes by denigrating the words "liberal" and "socialism" for the last 30 years, but America is wise to them today as we all witnessed in the elections of 2006 and 2008.

  • michaelh
    June 29, 2009 6:38 a.m.

    Socialism is the step between freedom and communism. Corporatism is the step between freedom and fascism. Obama is a corporatist. He was raised by communists and fed nothing but Communism. His books reek of his love of communism read them. Obama is a corporatist which puts us on the road to fascism. Fascism is just the right fork of totalitarianism that is communism and fascism.
    Just because one former East German thinks that he is not a communist does not make it so the Chinese government knows that he is a communist and so do thinking Americans.

  • Capitalism = Freedom?
    June 29, 2009 6:36 a.m.

    The underlying belief is that somehow capitalism equals freedom of choice, but the problem is that the natural outcome of free markets and capitalism is that it brings about consolidation and oligopolies that dominate key industries. With few massive companies dominating such industries, it naturally brings about reduced competition, reduced choice for consumers, and reduced pressure to reduce prices. Think of so many industries that fit this model -- from automobiles to energy to healthcare to retailing.

    The consequence is that consumers don't have the freedom to get the products and services that want -- for example, consumers have been demanding an alternative to oil for decades, but the auto industry refused to deliver. When it did in the mid-1990s (GM's EV1 electric plug in), the industry lobbied to kill regulations requiring it and took it off the market just before oil prices skyrocketed at plug-ins would have reduced our dependence on Iran and other oil dictatorships. Again, OLIGOPOLY reduced our freedom and hurt consumers.

    The bottomline is that government MUST step in to bring about solutions that the free market and capitalism CAN'T deliver due to oligopoly.

  • rsp
    June 29, 2009 5:32 a.m.

    The first poster is correct - it is not a crime to be a Marxist. I think the millions of people who died around the world at the hands of Communists in China, Russia, Cambodia and elsewhere might think it should be a crime to be a follower of the teachings of Karl Marx.
    Regardless of what we call Barack Obama it is apparent that the notion of individual responsibility that has been the norm in this Country (at least until FDR came along) doesn't sit well with Barack. I just call him a big-government statist who thinks the Federal Govt should micromanage the economy and control the most important aspects of the economy. He's also an admitted "wealth redistributionist"

  • NAZI?
    June 29, 2009 5:20 a.m.


    I think the administration of Barack Hussein Obama is more akin to the National Socialism of the Third Reich.

    The same can be said for previous administrations, whether Republican or Democrat, for they are all equally guilty of betrayal.

    Under National Socialism, the government exercises total control over all private industry, finance, and commerce.

    Isn't that what we have now, and have had for some time past?

    Let's look at some other comparisons to the Third Reich:

    Deciding who is worthy to live, and who must die, i.e., abortion and euthanasia.

    Laws mandating racial preferences and racial quotas.

    Thought control, manipulated and enforced by legislating "hate speech", "hate crimes", "politically correct" speech, and revisionist history.

    And, of course, gun control.

    What if those six million Jews had been armed?

    So, knowing this, what do WE do?

    If it's not too late, we might begin by no longer voting for Republican or Democrat candidates.

    We should also carefully study the Holy Bible, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States.

    Arm yourselves, and pray.

    Thank you.

    John Robert Mallernee
    Armed Forces Retirement Home
    Washington, D.C. 20011-8400

  • oh
    June 29, 2009 1:30 a.m.

    I think most people think of a Marxist, as a communist and a socialist as someone within the capitalist system who wants to give to those who have not earned a benefit something paid for by those who have worked hard to get something.

    In those terms Obama was trained by Marxist thinking professor and is now taking us deep down the road to socialism., through his spend and spend and spend and spend and spend philosophy. He thinks throwing money at a problem will solve it. I can give a person a fish or teach them to fish and they they can feed themselves in the future. At what point does he not understand the economy?

  • Maxist=socialist
    June 29, 2009 12:49 a.m.

    Obama is both a Marxist and a socialist because they are the same thing only perhaps in differing degrees. Obama believes he is justified in confiscating money from one person and redistributing it to someone else= what Marxists and socialists do! "From each according to their ability and to each according to their need". There are several problems with that idea however!
    #1: It punishes achievement, innovation,investment, hard work and self control and rewards inefficiency, lazyness, and the irresponsible. When those riding in the entitlemen wagon out number those who are trying to pulling the wagon, the whole system collapes,as it always has and always will.America is close to that collape now and no "bailout" will help!
    Another problem with Marxism and socialism is that who decides who gets what and who loses the efforts of their work? Socialism and Marxism always produces dictators who enforce the redistribution with tanks and machine guns. The cost of socialism and Marxism is freedom and prosperity! The results are poverty, suffering and death. No thank you Karl Marx, you can keep your socialist "utopia". We saw it in USSR, Cuba, China and everywhere else people bought into your lies!

  • Jem
    June 29, 2009 12:14 a.m.

    Of course President Obama is neither a Marxist nor a socialist. Anyone who would claim that he is obviously doesn't know the meaning of the words. Some basic education seems to be in order.

    I was born and raised in a socialist country, East Germany and actually laughed to read those terms used to describe the current US president.

    By the way, being either a Marxist or a socialist is not a crime. Neither is being a capitalist.