A Letter to Karl Marx.

My O My, How you've left so many in the dark.
If only the eyes of your victims could see,
How you've crippled so many in your dark decree.
Through many seasons, years gone by,
your oppressing philosophy is recorded in history, to make you that fearful reality.
You fettered the hands of the working man's dreams.
You made them martyrs while you laughed and screamed.
Many have taken up your hopeless envisionry, in hopes to betowe Great Tribulation on those of lesser degree.
Fools(Clinton and Edwards)Indeed.
-------------------------------------

The Proposition--and Goal.

Today, and from this day forward; it is called upon every man, woman, and child, to bring to an end, the remaining vestiges of Marxism.

Take heart my fellow Christians!

Victory--is just ahead!!

Jeremiah

"I'll have tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, baked beans, tax, tax, tax, and tax!"

"We're out of Beans."

"Oh, can I have tax instead then?"

"You mean tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, tax, and tax?"

And the Vikings sing: "Tax, Tax, Tax, Tax! Tax, lovely Tax!"

You know, it's interesting, Democrats want to give healthcare to give all this money to the "poor" and so, they want more taxes from the working man. So, here's my question...

If I am taking medicine (and I am,btw) and then I have to start paying for someone elses medicine, then how can I expect to work and pay for medicine for myself and everybody else?

If I have to have a major problem arise, and I have to have surgery that will cost me anywhere between, say 10 to 20k, will they pay for the surgery for free?

How far will my taxes go to benefit my 401k, after withdrawed subsidies?
Will I get any of that money back that I helped to subsidize other people?

What percentage of the money will Democrats hold for themselves before giving to the supposed "poor"?

Why do people that don't work for their earnings have to receive healthcare form me, when I have enough of my own to worry about?

Will the benefits of the elderly decrease as a result of this measure?

I wonder what percentage of this money will assist in Abortions, the Murder of unborn children?

Who is the wealthier in the end?

Why the big wigs in Washingtion, when you subsidize the supposed "poor" then the doctors make good money, and in turn, the Democrats will tax the Doctors to death!!!

Who is at loss? The Employed, and Small Business owners who are shelling out their entire wallets every quarter to the government!!

This country would suffer under such a burden, with so many aliens here who don't work!!!

People must get on the offensive and work to stop the efforts of Democrats to destroy America!!!!

Jeremiah

Okay Jeremiah,

"If I am taking medicine (and I am,btw) and then I have to start paying for someone elses medicine, then how can I expect to work and pay for medicine for myself and everybody else?

If I have to have a major problem arise, and I have to have surgery that will cost me anywhere between, say 10 to 20k, will they pay for the surgery for free?"

Assuming you have private insurance, you are currently paying for someone else's medicine and for their surgery. Those people in turn are paying for medical care you will receive. That is what insurance is, it spreads the cost out among a large population. The reason your medicine is cheap is because you are only covering part of the cost, your insurance company is using deductibles it received from other people to cover the rest. In the process it takes some money for itself. This is called profit.
Right now, like it or not, you are paying for other's healthcare.
Now under a government insurance plan, you would also be paying for other's helath care. You would not have to pay for your private healthcare. Thus, the additional money you spend on taxes would be offset by your savings on paying for private healthcare.
Your beef seems to be that some citizens will not contribute as much as you do and that these people somehow get a "free ride."
Here is the following problem with that thinking:
This happens whenever you provide a service through tax dollars. Roads for example. These are used by the poor and rich yet the rich pay more in taxes and thus have contributed more to the construction of roads. Police, fire, military and numerous other government services work the same way. What about parks? The unemployed did not pay for these, should we keep them from entering? You are not opposed these uses of tax dollars, are you? Why do you oppose health care with such fervor.

AS someone who is well off, I understand that I am well off because I worked hard but also because I live in a country that gave me a lot. I received a free education until I was 18 and a heavily subsidized eduction through undergraduate and graduate school. I grew up in a nice environment thanks to government regulation of pollution. The government provided afforadable transportation to and from school. Overall, the government has done a lot for me. I would like to see others have the same opportunity I had and more if possible. I want to see that sick people get the healthcare at a reasonable price.

Finally you write this:
"Who is the wealthier in the end?"
That really depends on how you define wealthy, huh? AS hinted above, we could pay much less in taxes if we simply cut money to things like our national parks, local schools, food stamp programs etc. This would in the end make the people who earned the money wealthier in the strictest financial sense. But is that additional wealth worth the society we would live in? Doesn't providing services and food to people make our society wealtier and thus all of us wealtier? When I say wealty, I don't mean it in just the touchy feely sense, either. Our country is an investment. If we invest in it and provide for it, it will give us a return on our investment.

Also, I don't think you understand Marxism. This country is no where near becoming a Marxist state. The basic idea of Marx was that workers take over the means of production and tranform a free market into a command economy. We are the freest market in the world. We are one of the most capitalist countries in the world.
Providing government services did not originate with Marx. I assume you know other capitalist nations provide healthcare to their citizens.
Taiwan, Britain, Japan, and Canada all have market economies and manage to provide healthcare to their citizens.

These robber barons are courting their voters, the folks who make less than 150-200 thousand a year. A lot of these folks are convinced that wealth is evil, because they follow, in lock-step, with their puppet masters. They don't look at the big picture; i.e., I've never been hired by a poor person...

What percentage of the money will Democrats hold for themselves before giving to the supposed "poor"?

How much money, collected ostensibly to "help the poor", will go into running the government programs intended for this purpose, and how much will actually get into the pockets of the poor?

The basic idea of Marx was that workers take over the means of production and tranform a free market into a command economy. We are the freest market in the world. We are one of the most capitalist countries in the world.

No, Karl Marx believed Government should control every aspect of peoples lives, the transfer of money and so forth, he believed the proletariet should work to to feed and house other families, especially the rich, thus turning them into mere slaves!!!

Hillary Clinton and the whole Democrats clan want to adopt Karl Marx's practices and cause great suffering in America!!!!

We will stop them!!!

Jeremiah

No, Karl Marx believed Government should control every aspect of peoples lives, the transfer of money and so forth, he believed the proletariet should work to to feed and house other families, especially the rich, thus turning them into mere slaves!!!

Um, no.
He believed in communal owernship by employees of the means of production.
The transfer of money is controlled by our government. That is part of a government's job. To create a monetary system.

"he believed the proletariet should work to to feed and house other families, especially the rich, thus turning them into mere slaves!!!"

It is sentences like this that make me believe you are not who you say you are. First, the United States believes this. As a nation it is in our best interest to feed and cloth are citizens. Not doing so would result in social upheaval.
Second, and you can't possibly mean this, Marx did not want the proletariat to work to feed the rich. That was what he argued against. He believed that the workers were slaves to owners of the means of production aka capitalist. He wanted to eliminate the rich capital class, not provide for them.
The other possible meaning of your sentence is only slightly less incorrect. Marx did not want the rich to work to feed poor people. He did not want rich people, more presicisely he did not want a capitalist class.
Our country is not a Marxist country. Even if you take half of the rich's income, we are still not a Marxist country. Why? We have private ownership of the means of production. When the Democrats end private ownership come back and make your argument. Then you can then tell me Marx has come to America.

Oh neocon:
"These robber barons are courting their voters, the folks who make less than 150-200 thousand a year."

Robber Barons? Really? This is a really bad analogy if you know who the Robber Barons were. They invented deregulation and were the the staunchest opponents of the Federal income tax.
They were, in a word, the 19th century equivelant of you only much richer.

what is this picture? Fredrick Douglas?

If that is Fredrick some of his great quotes:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.

I recognize the Republican party as the sheet anchor of the colored man's political hopes and the ark of his safety.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men

To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Edwards proposals are typical leftist tactics that appeal to the far left wackos: Promise to outgive the opposition.

Edwards won't have my vote until he promises free waterfront condos to all Americans.

That has got to be the worst photoshopped picture I have ever seen. Bravo!

Let's see.....

Karl Marx stated that government must control or ban:

1)Education
2)Banking system
3)Property ownership
4)Religion

Can anyone else add to this list?

The libs have successfully acheived the first four I have listed in order to form the society/government defined by Marx. If there is more that needs to be added to the list, just how far the libs will go to push their take-over of our lives?

Lemme see!
Your wife gets sick........ You, come to my house, and demand, at the POINT of a GUN, that I give you money to help pay for her treatment. This - because you never bought insurance to cover her.

Would that be OK?
THIS is EXACTALLY, what YOU want the government to do to ME and my FAMILY!

I am 62 years old (almost) have a 40 plus hour job and have two businesses.
When I retire I may have to work in one of my businesses to suplemint my pension to help pay for my familys medical coverage.
All i can say is get off your whining lazy A$$es and do what ever it takes to survive.

DONT......STEAL MY FAMILYS MONEY to supliment yours at the end of a govt. GUN!

what is this picture? Fredrick Douglas?

Actually, that is a photoshop of John Edwards' face imposed on a painting of Karl Marx.

Why does every one on this site equate using tax dollars for caring for the poor with Communism?

No one is arguing for creating a classless society. The argument is that the government provides a higher basic living standard for those who are least fortunate. Part of this basic living standard should be basic healthcare. This is not Communism. We are one of the only (if not only) developed nations in the world that does not provide this. Japan, Britain, Canada, Taiwan, these are not Marxist states.
Have any of you actually read Marx?

test