Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (467663)	3/31/2009 1:14:33 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575417

>> Which according to Tench make Obama a marxist? At the very least you have to admit that Obama is putting forth some strongly Marxist concepts. Notably, the concept of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." While you may argue with the extent of the implementation (to date), the concept is definitely there. So, we have an administration that believes that it should dictate how much money people make, or when a person makes more than the Obama government deems appropriate, it should be confiscated and redistributed to those the Obama government believes are more deserving. This is precisely what is happening today. First with the AIG bonus situation, now with Barney Frank wanting to take control of ALL payroll in any of these companies receiving government money, ultimately, to be extended to the economy as a whole. This is the fundamental precept of Marxism. One could argue there are other aspects that aren't implemented [yet], but it doesn't matter. This is the Obama styled approach to a classless society, and that is, after all, the ultimate goal of Marxism.

To: Alighieri who wrote (467663)	3/31/2009 1:22:11 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575417

we have disagree on much in the past but events have drawn us closer together in the conclusions we reach if not totally on our views. I was a big reagan guy and continue to defend his presidency. I view the economy as a rubber band. When reagan took over it was one of those long flacid rubberbands without much stretchability. Reagan put firmness and flexibility back into the system thru dereg and productivity enhancers and low tax rates. Things worked well enough post 80s recession all the way to clinton term 2. Thats where the rubberband began to be stretched to its breaking point. Then events took over--bush election, 9/11, recession, war, and renewed deficits. 2003 is the year we crossed the rubicon by attacking iraq with no real plan to fight and win or to finance the war on the books. Guns and butter and two sets of books. I think thats how we got from there to here. Along the way, ship could have been righted but once iraq war began and went south and cost hundreds of billions, the dye was cast. Now reagan wouldnt have done that and i do believe clintonistas would have discovered folly of going forward in the way they were. Even bush before 2003 might have figured it out. But if madoff was a multi billion dollar ponzi scheme US finance system became a multi trillion one. And as bernie said, once you do ponzi even if you expect it to be shortlived, it takes over and in time will fail.