What the Russians are Saying about Obama's USA

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Matt, somehow I got the idea that you were a naturalized citizen, but you say “us” here.

Did I have it wrong?[/quote]

I am a naturalized citizen, but nothing will change the fact that I am from Russia and will probably always identify myself as a Russian no matter where I live.[/quote]

So do you also consider yourself an American?[/quote]

Yes, I do. I have lived here for about half of my life and all of my adult life. You of all people can probably understand this. Can you tell me that after all the time you have spent in Japan you do not consider yourself at least a little bit Japanese as well as American? I consider myself an American as well as Russian. I care just as much about America as I do Russia. I am leaving America next year for a better job environment (as well as my first experience with socialism since the days of the Soviet Union), but that will not change anything and I hope to return someday if it is feasible.
[/quote]

Interesting. Where are you heading that’s a socialist environment and a better market for physics? [/quote]

Norway. The salary and budget I was offered at NTNU are much better then I was offered anywhere in the US outside of working for private companies, which is not very appealing to me. There just isn’t a lot of money for physics research right now, but I expect that to change sometime in the near future.
[/quote]

It better pay good considering the astronomical cost of living. But good luck to you abroad, I reckon you’ll be used to the cold shitty whether since you grew up in Russia.

42

[quote]pat wrote:

That being said, having a Russian paper call you a bunch of commies should give anyone pause for concern.

[/quote]

You got it.
That was the main point for posting the article.

Think of the irony of communists calling Americans communists.

43

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Planks of the Communist Manifesto:

  1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

I can’t read minds, and even more cannot when a person has already died, but my impression is that Reagan was more protective of private property than Obama is. Do you disagree?

The fact that Reagan also had taxation doesn’t change the point, as all governments tax. So clearly taxation itself doesn’t prove that a government is in the Communist direction, else the term would be meaningless. Reagan worked toward decreasing taxes; Obama does not seem to have that sort of inclination.

  1. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Reagan’s taxes were nowhere near as “progessive” as Obama’s. Obama wants the majority of his voters to pay essentially zero income tax, and the productive to pay very high tax. Obama takes the already-extreme graduation of the Bush tax code to a level never before seen. Do you disagree that Obama’s tax concepts are much more in line with Marx’s than Reagan’s were? That is, much more graduated, higher rates for high earners than for low earners.

  1. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Was Reagan in favor of high inheritance taxes? Obama is.

  1. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

There was probably no difference in tax confiscation policies.

  1. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

I don’t know Reagan’s stance on banking. He never did do anything like Obama’s “stimulus” though. Certainly in practice no difference with regard to the Fed.

  1. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

  2. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

  3. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

  4. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

I’d said that 6-9 didn’t really apply to Obama.

  1. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Reagan wanted less Federal involvement in education, Obama wanted more.

Do you yourself think Reagan wanted, or acted to achieve, the directions Obama does of extreme “progressiveness” in tax rate, death taxes, and overall government control of the economy? By the above criteria, do you actually find Reagan more in the Communist direction? That seems novel.
[/quote]

Your main differences (other than a variety of conjecture) come down to taxation. Reagan’s taxes were higher. He increased the debt ceiling what 18 times? As for what you say Obama wants to do, I’m not going to comment on that. We don’t judge Presidents on what they wanted to do, we judge them on what they did. After all Reagan talked a good game on limited government, he just governed the opposite. Taxes are lower than under Reagan. Will they be next year or the year after? I have no idea. They are now though and have been the past 4 years. That is undeniable fact. The rest of them seem pretty damn similar. Reagan tripled the deficit, gave amnesty to three million illegals, etc.

I only bring him up because he’s the conservative champion and we have all these myths surrounding his aura. And it’s fun to catch die hard Republicans who nut themselves over Reagan while pointing out he did the same shit they now “hate” about Obama. I’ll still maintain: If Obama’s a Communist so is Reagan. Who do I find MORE Communist? Neither. Both are so far away from Communism it’s laughable. Our country in the 80’s or today is NOTHING like most Communist countries. We are on the path for bigger and bigger government. This was a path started long ago. Reagan continued it, as did those who followed him including Barack Obama. For this, I’m not an Obama fan…but I’m no Reagan fan either.

44

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You can tax the rich all you want, there are not enough of them to make a dent into the problem.

You either tax everyone, cut massive entitlements, or both.
[/quote]

It’s impossible to tax everyone enough to pay for Medicare and SS. Although since Gen X is the smallest of the generations in theory we would only need to make it through the boomers but I don’t have the math to back that theory up.

james

45

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
You can tax the rich all you want, there are not enough of them to make a dent into the problem.

You either tax everyone, cut massive entitlements, or both.
[/quote]

It’s impossible to tax everyone enough to pay for Medicare and SS. Although since Gen X is the smallest of the generations in theory we would only need to make it through the boomers but I don’t have the math to back that theory up.

james
[/quote]

In other words, you could tax the rich until their eyeballs popped out, and it still would not work ?

So will Obama break the news to his people, that EVERYONE has to feel the pinch ? From “the most transparent administration” ever ?

46

There’s an old joke about Pravda:

Years ago there was an auto race between the best car the Soviets could build and the best car the US could build. US went on to win the race. The next morning, Pravda reported the results, “Soviet car places second, US finishes next to last”

47

[quote]H factor wrote:
Taxes are lower than under Reagan. [/quote]

In large part thanks to Bush 43. Come on with this man. This isn’t an Obama policy, other than he spent 2 years coming up with AHA rather than spending time on revenue increases.

It is like saying all those people that finished second to Lance won, because they took his wins away a decade later…

48

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Taxes are lower than under Reagan. [/quote]

In large part thanks to Bush 43. Come on with this man. This isn’t an Obama policy, other than he spent 2 years coming up with AHA rather than spending time on revenue increases.

It is like saying all those people that finished second to Lance won, because they took his wins away a decade later… [/quote]

What does that have to do with anything? The charge was made on Obama and taxes, I merely pointed out that taxes haven’t been higher under Obama than they were Reagan. Why do conservatives want to give Bush the credit for that, but place all the national debt blame on Obama? That’s picking and choosing and is classic modern day conservative. Against big government except when it’s the type of government they like. Against what Obama did, but were for it when it was Bush or Reagan. Giving the credit for Clinton’s work to Republicans only, but blaming other stuff soley on him. Liberals do the same thing. Both sides look great when you blame the faults on the other side and take all the credit for the good. It’s the problems with a two party system.

49

[quote]H factor wrote:
Your main differences (other than a variety of conjecture) come down to taxation. Reagan’s taxes were higher. He increased the debt ceiling what 18 times? As for what you say Obama wants to do, I’m not going to comment on that. We don’t judge Presidents on what they wanted to do, we judge them on what they did. After all Reagan talked a good game on limited government, he just governed the opposite. Taxes are lower than under Reagan. [/quote]
Why do you keep saying taxes are now lower than under Reagan? And further, it seems to add confusion to have it that we can consider only what a President has done to date versus what he says he is out to do and will do if he can. Why would that not also be proper for consideration?

Taxes are lower now for whom? Yes, it’s true that taxes are now more progressive, where nearly 50% of income earners pay zero or near-zero income tax. That is very, very progressive, which was a goal of Marx. Taxes were higher for low earners, modest but higher, under Reagan. That hardly shows Communist tendencies on Reagan’s part, though if you want to keep saying it then it’s your right.

In this case, being higher, though modest, is not more “Communist.” Everyone, among those earning income and being beyond actually poor, paying something in income tax is not Communist let alone more Communist than taxing principally the “rich.”

On rates for those that actually are made to pay significant income tax, I have seen liberal websites such as http://www.politicususa.com/reagan-tax-rates.html claiming high income tax rate for Reagan but I don’t know that those are right.

It also seems fair to attribute to Obama what he says he wants the top rate to be and says he will do. Why should that not be counted in considering what his position really is? Do you have the figure? You are making the claim that Reagan’s rate was higher so can you back the comparison up with specifics?

50

[quote]H factor wrote:

What does that have to do with anything? The charge was made on Obama and taxes, I merely pointed out that taxes haven’t been higher under Obama than they were Reagan.[/quote]

It has to do with being honest. You’re painting with a broad brush here. The two administrations aren’t as comparable at the detail level you are using.

No, I’m not defending Reagan, in fact I blame his administration for a large bit of the croynism we have today, but it isn’t like he started it or is the only one. He doesn’t deserve the liberal hate he gets though.

You are creating people to argue with that aren’t me. I didn’t bring up the debt.

I’m also pretty sure I’ve said, to you, that the republicans in congress fucked up giving Bush43 an open checkbook and were assholes.

However, that doesn’t take away from the fact that Obama carried on the same polices he himself called “failed” in 2008 & 2012.

Yes Bush fucked some things up, no Obama didn’t fix or change anything in respect to the debt or spending.

Well, no shit. This is human nature. You need some government, lets not be silly. What is or isn’t “big” is a whole different conversation, but the point still satnds. Everyone is agaisnt the type of government they don’t like and for the government they do.

You are acting like you aren’t this way too.

[quote] Both sides look great when you blame the faults on the other side and take all the credit for the good. It’s the problems with a two party system.

[/quote]

This would happen with 3 parties or 13 parties. This is human nature as well, and I would say more a product of croynism, “backroom” policies/donations and a concern for re-election than whatever number of parties there are. This wouldn’t (and doesn’t) go away if you introduce a 3rd person into the debate.

51

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Your main differences (other than a variety of conjecture) come down to taxation. Reagan’s taxes were higher. He increased the debt ceiling what 18 times? As for what you say Obama wants to do, I’m not going to comment on that. We don’t judge Presidents on what they wanted to do, we judge them on what they did. After all Reagan talked a good game on limited government, he just governed the opposite. Taxes are lower than under Reagan. [/quote]
Why do you keep saying taxes are now lower than under Reagan? And further, it seems to add confusion to have this insistence on only on what a President does versus what he says he is out to do and will do if he can do so. Why would that not also be proper for consideration?

Taxes are lower now for whom? Yes, it’s true that taxes are now more progressive, where nearly 50% of income earners pay zero income tax. That is very, very progressive, which was a goal of Marx. Taxes were higher for low earners – still modest, but higher – under Reagan.

In this case, being higher, though modest, is not more “Communist.” Everyone, among those earning income and being beyond actually poor, paying something\ in income tax is not Communist.

On rates for those that are actually taxed, I have seen liberal websites such as http://www.politicususa.com/reagan-tax-rates.html claiming high income tax rate for Reagan but I don’t know that those are right. The correct top rate seems to be 28%.

It also seems fair to attribute to Obama what he says he wants the top rate to be and says he will do. Why should that not be counted in considering what his position really is? Do you have the figure? You are making the claim that Reagan’s rate was higher so can back the comparison up with specifics?[/quote]

Because taxes are lower. For half the median income, the median income, and one and a half the median income. The 50% no income you’re talking about includes the elderly, very young people, some soldiers, etc. It’s a talking point.

In a few years after all these horrible things that you seem to think are going to happen come to fruition then maybe we can talk about them. Maybe Obama will turn the US into a full throated Communist country and be completely different his second term from his first. I doubt it. The government will continue to grow because that’s what our government does. We will spend an insane amount of money on defense and entitlements. I feel pretty confident in this. You’re confident that Obama “thinks” like a Communist. You want to argue on thoughts? That’s fine, I don’t know the man nor claim to know exactly how he thinks. I’ll judge what he does, not what you THINK he might do.

As for now here in the real world, we aren’t living in a Communist country under an evil Communist genetically bred in Kenya by evil left wing thinkers or whatever else the right believes at this current moment. It’s hard to keep up with their insanity.

53

You have quite the perception to tell me what I am confident in, that I have not said, yet what Obama has said he will do, you cannot perceive if it should be attributed to him.

That sort of approach can make it difficult to acquire accurate understanding of people. But to each his own.

At any rate, while I do not know Obama’s thought processes, I know that he has stated plainly his clear intention to raise income tax rates on those who actually pay significant tax, and yes not on the roughly 50% of income earners who pay no or nearly no income tax, and impose a severe inheritance tax. I suppose a person can discount that if he wishes to on the grounds of not being something he has actually done yet.

54

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/[/quote]

Interesting. Good find.

I’d be interested to see the Bam supporters respond to this.[/quote]

Perhaps we should be more concerned with America’s foreign policy towards Russia and not a sensationalist piece from a known propagandist newspaper.

Contrary to the dismissive views of many in the West, Russia is a great power. While Russia may never again reach the superpower status it enjoyed during the Cold War, in terms of its “comprehensive national power”- its combined economic, military, and diplomatic strengths- Russia ranks among the strongest powers in the world today. Its economy has grown exponentially since 1998. Its military spending has increased by 20 percent annually in recent years. Russia holds the greatest reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world, including the largest reserves of petroleum and nearly half of the world’s potential coal reserves. Contrary to many peoples’ preconceptions, Europe depends more on Russia for its supply of energy than the Middle East. Russia has turned away from the post-war integrationist foreign policy championed by Yeltsin and Kozyrev. Great Power nationalism has returned to Russia, and with it traditional great power calculations and ambitions.

55

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/[/quote]

Interesting. Good find.

I’d be interested to see the Bam supporters respond to this.[/quote]

Perhaps we should be more concerned with America’s foreign policy towards Russia and not a sensationalist piece from a known propagandist newspaper.

Contrary to the dismissive views of many in the West, Russia is a great power. While Russia may never again reach the superpower status it enjoyed during the Cold War, in terms of its “comprehensive national power”- its combined economic, military, and diplomatic strengths- Russia ranks among the strongest powers in the world today. Its economy has grown exponentially since 1998. Its military spending has increased by 20 percent annually in recent years. Russia holds the greatest reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world, including the largest reserves of petroleum and nearly half of the world’s potential coal reserves. Contrary to many peoples’ preconceptions, Europe depends more on Russia for its supply of energy than the Middle East. Russia has turned away from the post-war integrationist foreign policy championed by Yeltsin and Kozyrev. Great Power nationalism has returned to Russia, and with it traditional great power calculations and ambitions.

56

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

…Those who call Obama a Communist clearly don’t understand the term nor have any idea what it was like for those who lived under such circumstances. [/quote]

Uhhh…here we go again. Communists, Russian communists, don’t understand the term nor have any idea what it was like?[/quote]

From the article: "Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

Let’s give American voters the benefit of the doubt and say it was all voter fraud and not ignorance or stupidity in electing a man who does not even know what to do and refuses help from Russia when there was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead we’ll say it’s true that the Communists usage of electronic voting was just a plan to manipulate the vote. Soros and his ownership of the company that counts the US votes in Spain helped put their puppet in power in the White House."

Doesn’t sound as if the author has any bias at all huh? But apparently this is the AUTHORITY for what Communist is from the one and only guy who decides?

57

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/19-11-2012/122849-obama_soviet_mistake-0/[/quote]

Interesting. Good find.

I’d be interested to see the Bam supporters respond to this.[/quote]

Perhaps we should be more concerned with America’s foreign policy towards Russia and not a sensationalist piece from a known propagandist newspaper.

Contrary to the dismissive views of many in the West, Russia is a great power. While Russia may never again reach the superpower status it enjoyed during the Cold War, in terms of its “comprehensive national power”- its combined economic, military, and diplomatic strengths- Russia ranks among the strongest powers in the world today. Its economy has grown exponentially since 1998. Its military spending has increased by 20 percent annually in recent years. Russia holds the greatest reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world, including the largest reserves of petroleum and nearly half of the world’s potential coal reserves. Contrary to many peoples’ preconceptions, Europe depends more on Russia for its supply of energy than the Middle East. Russia has turned away from the post-war integrationist foreign policy championed by Yeltsin and Kozyrev. Great Power nationalism has returned to Russia, and with it traditional great power calculations and ambitions. [/quote]

So… You’re saying Romney was correct?

59

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
There’s an old joke about Pravda:

Years ago there was an auto race between the best car the Soviets could build and the best car the US could build. US went on to win the race. The next morning, Pravda reported the results, “Soviet car places second, US finishes next to last”[/quote]

Yeah, that sounds about right. Their propaganda didn’t always work though, they’d be whining about American decadence and showing all these nice cars, clothes and stores with people shopping in a store that had more than one thing in it. People noticed from time to time. They did have sputnik to hang their hat on.

60

Just to be clear, is anyone here explicitly contending that Obama is in fact a communist?