No all it means is that you are lost in your fantasy.

(Scene opens on follow-up phone call; Obama to Pelosi)

“Nancy? Barry here. Yeah just spoke to Rahm.”

(Fast indistinguishable chatter on other end of line in background)

“No I hear you, I hear you. You have my word, and you know my word is my bond, that our’s will be a cohesive and seamless partnership for America.”

(Pulls aside drapes to reveal Rahm climbing into the Obama bus to warm it up. We hear; ‘Va-room, chuga-chuga-chuga’)

“A-a-absolutely. In fact, I was just looking at a vehicle for this that I’m sure Harry and you could surely get under to get this whole thing rolling. It will be like a well-oiled machine, you’ll see… Rest assured the back door has a warning alarm on it and I’ll have it in my rear view, so you needn’t be concerned about that. I promise nobody in my staff is going to be sneaking anyone in without me knowing it.”

(More chatter)

“No, no surprises. Naancyy, I wouldn’t s4!7 you, you’re my favorite turd.”

“Hey no, just kidding there. I know you guys worked magic with the DNC to get me in here over Hillary during the primaries. Pay to play as they say.” chuckles, “And I owe you bigtime. I always pay back my friends.”

(Chatter seems more calm. Obama dons a blue jacket then reaches for what looks like a round chaffeur’s cap with a front bill.)

“I’ll be right over there to go over a couple of things. Just have to uh, get behind my um… steering committee on the way, but I’ll be right there. Why don’t you and Harry wait for me out in front of the Capital building in… say; oh about 10 minutes? Ciao Baby.”

I’m speechless INRE your inheritance comment. …

…necessary to prevent the emergence of a “to the manor born” class of Americans, owing their fortune with respect to accident of birth, as opposed to initiative, hard work, and inspiration.

Even reading it again… I’m just shocked into silence and despair at such an attitude prevailing in the US.

Let me get this straight… you believe that the earned rewards of the parents should be automatically remanded to the government for “the good” of the offspring? Those who earned their assets should have no say in how to delegate their own personal rewards?

What can one say to that? I swear, the more I look around and listen, the more I’m quite sure that I’m an alien, abandoned here by accident. And frankly, I wish they’d come back for me….

That you and so many place not only such faith, but your hard earned cash into the hands of “government” is beyond baffling. Can you not see daily that those you entrust are rabid and corrupt power brokers? all except your Obama, I guess you believe… That’s okay, Larry. I have vast patience. I’m quite content to wait for the pixie dust to wear off… as it will. But while I’m waiting, I’m not going to stand idly by and allow those that think like you to seize personal assets “for the children”, so to speak. Not while I live and breathe.

Tell you what… you give *your* assets to the government upon death. I’ll pass mine on to my son. Choice… the freedom of choice. How very American, yes? You won’t strip your children of “initiative” and “inspiration”, and hopefully I’ll help my son achieve his. We’re both happy.

But don’t tell me you’re taking my assets after death, and giving them to the corrupt in the DC beltway to piss away… all for “the good” of my son. Horse manure. You actually know people who buy this crock of shit?? I’m stunned, I tell you.

If this is the nanny/communal notions the Republicans must “play to” in order to win elections, then conservatism, capitalism, ambition, pride of achievement and responsibility for self and family are already dead in this country. Thank you for a thoroughly depressing comment.

Liberals/Progressives are screaming that Obama is appointing centrists and right centrists to all the top cabinet positions. I’ve referenced these previously.

The fact that you guys think that Obama is appointing Leftists and the fact that true Leftists are complaining that Obama is appointing Centrists and Rightists means that Obama has found the sweet spot of successful America electoral politics.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I’m in favor of the progressive tax, because people in the higher income levels benefit from public sector activities to a multiplicative degree.

A business owner (or even a movie star or athlete) owes his/her success to an educated workforce, a good infrastructure, including air traffic control and the Internet, good health care, local security, defense of shipping lanes and national defense in general, the patent system and federal defense of intellectual property, the security and exhange commission, the Departments of Commerce and the Treasury, and on and on.

To the extent that each of these activities benefits the individual, the top tier income earners, who owe their incomes to the success of the individuals “beneath” them (who collectively generate the capital which contributes to the assets of the top tier) receive disproportionate benefit from public sector activities. Therefore, the top tier (income wise) should rightfully contribute a disproportionate share of public resources.

With regard to the inheritance tax, this is necessary to prevent the emergence of a “to the manor born” class of Americans, owing their fortune with respect to accident of birth, as opposed to initiative, hard work, and inspiration.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Cut the spin and stop dreaming, Larry. Get back to reality. This is all smokescreen. This is how manipulator operates: “Faint right, move left”. His goal is to destroy capitalism in the States… he is a communist at heart. Your eyes are wide shut. When will you open them?

As for the new quasi-socialism, that’s why I’ve been referring to it as the Europeanization of America. Tecnically, as the US govt has not taken formal ownership of all banks, all energy, and auto industries, the act is not absolute. However with auto czars attempting to make production and price control decisions, there’s not much left but to take title.

The progressive tax system has been in place since 1913, when the Congress did an amendment ratifying the original US Constitutional language that stated:

““[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,”

Frankly, the notion of a progressive tax was appalling to the Founders, and still is appalling to me. I prefer a flat tax. But do not misconstrue my adverbs of appalling and unConstitutional as to accusations of socialist/Marxist.

Fact is Hard Right is totally correct. It is not merely Obama’s “spread the wealth” mentality by taking more from the higher earners, and giving it to those who earn less. It is a piece of the Obama puzzle…. the associations from childhood until his campaign. When those associations became under scrutiny, he tossed them aside until the election was over. They will resurface… all of them.

The beliefs laid out in his book. His choice of quotes and speech themes that revolve around Alinsky. His educational philosophy. His predictable and obvious (even to you, if you pay attention) pat answers that all problems must be addressed and cured by government, regulations, and social welfare programs…. always financed by someone else. Fact is, Obama is great at spending other people’s money. He’s extraordinary at extolling and soliciting cash… and as the CAC proves, he is a wasteful and unproductive spender as an administrator.

Socialist/Marxism isn’t a single act. It is an imbred theology. Obama will dance the center line on any and all issues until he sees a clear path in to a far left turn. Larry doesn’t think he’ll do it. If it’s not going to pass muster with the population, neither do I, because Obama lives for approval ratings. But progressive/socialist is where Obama lives.. and has been raised… politically. This from his past, present and future designs.

And I see you can’t figure out where the “FA standards”… if there was such a thing as we authors constantly do battle on and off forum… nail Greenspan as a socialist. So I’d be content that you just admit you overreached in order to placate a fellow “out of the mainstream” commenter.

I’m not a lawyer but sometimes I write like one. Re-read my original statement. I didn’t say anyone here said that, what I said was by your standards. If you consider Obama a socialist per his conversation with Joe, then by your standards Greenspan should be as well. I’ve linked to web articles supporting this before. The “redistribution of wealth” came during a television interview, which until I have hours to track down, I’ll just say “I believe he said”.