"From each according to his abilty, to each according to his needs."

Ok, this thing is really starting to catch fire. First, a couple of points ...

It's Sun Tzu (the spelling that is). It's sitting on a book shelf just to the left of my screen next to Machiavelli and Frederick The Great (and YES Titus, I have taken it off the shelf and read it already ... he, he).

I played Risk countless times in my youth. Actually my step father introduced it to me. As for the other games you've mentioned (NATO, 6th Fleet), I've never even heard of them. I know, GASP! But now we have an all new reason to again be joined in NEPA for another live Driveway round - playing each of these games. And as the 14 year old will undoubtedly have the nick-name of "Ol blood and guts" by the time Jambo and I get there, then the quorum will be set. Seriously though, that would be serious FUN on Titus's deck, fireside, dominating the globe. Dammit! Will one of us just please get ridiculously rich so time and space cease being obstacles to such gatherings (or perhaps elected to congress, staff allowances for jr congressmen are well over 350k per year!).

The second point ... I was astounded to rise the other morning, activate the monitor with my space bar, and find out that I agree with one George W. Bush 80% of the time. I realize you do in fact "know" me Titus (not in the Biblical sense, don't get happy), but you occasionally assign these arbitrary and somewhat stereotypical numbers and opinions to me as if I'm a Republican first and a conservative second, when it is the reverse. My number? Roughly, off the top of my head I agree with "Dubya" 40 to 50% of the time. And nearly every bit of that is wrapped up in national security, tax policy (note I didn't write "economic policy" as a whole) and of course, abortion. And in terms of his legacy we are in agreeance - if he is to one day be viewed positively (as a majority of Americans see it) that "one day" will indeed be 50-75 years from now. This is the precise reason I used the phrase "generations", plural (being a generation is defined as 25 years).

****
So I whipped out my handy Webster's New World Pocket Dictionary 4th Edition, and page to the following:
SOCIALISM n. - public ownership of the means of production.

This is the word that can pull off a McCain victory, period. And it's already having an effect. Let me explain. I have a friend in Biloxi. He owns his own hair salon. He has always trended towards the Democrat Party due to social issues (abortion, etc) and he's certainly always been a bit "quirky" in terms of how he sees politics. The other day I get a text from him excoriating this Joe the Plumber guy. "He's not even a real plumber, he's wanted for tax fraud and he doesn't make 250k a year like he claimed" etc, etc. None of which are true by the way. But knowing this guy has gone from quirky to a flat out whack-job politically (conspiracy theories etc) wasn't what got my attention. I know him and he doesn't do "research" of the Bund brand. He has been spoon fed this information on ol' Joe the Plumber. Which can only mean that Obama 08' knows how poisonous the "spread the wealth around" comment was, and has gone after Joe as a distraction.

Date, mid October, 2008. Place - Orlando FL. You may have seen this interview by a local Florida anchorwoman with Joe Biden on FOX et al. This is the one in which she literally quotes Marx and asks Biden if the "spread the wealth around" mentality of Barak isn't in sync with Marx. Joe was condescending and evasive, then declared, and I quote, "NO! The bottom line is that people making 1.4 million dollars a year will see another 86 billion dollar tax cut next year and we think that it [the US economy] doesn't work if you continue to distribute that wealth upwards."

Astonishing. "Distribute that wealth upwards." What? The only way this approach, and that statement, makes sense is if you consider the earnings of the private sector first and foremost the property of the US government rather then that of the EARNER! It's their money! And keeping their own money (or more of it) is "distribution?" Only to a socialist-Marxist-Leninist, I would argue. It's an astonishing momentary revelation. Watch the entire 5 minute interview HERE.

Now get this article:

"Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.

A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York ..." (source HERE).

That's the woman whom testified before them, and who authored the plan they're looking at. Basically, it would take your 401k (by liquidating it, taking it out of the stock market) and put it into the hands of the Social Security Administration. They would then invest it in government bonds at a 3% annual yield. They would then require you to contribute 5% of your income each year, and INSTEAD of the size of that contribution dictating the tax incentive (in other words the larger dollar amount you contribute, the better it is for your tax burden because it's deducted from your income as nontaxable wages) EVERYONE would instead get a flat $600 a year, adjusted annually for inflation. Meaning the tax deduction of the contribution is gone and in its place every person gets $600. This way the government gets its hands on a new source of tax revenue by now counting the contribution as a part of your taxable income. So say right now you contribute (if you're wealthy) $100,000 a year. That 100k is deducted from your taxable income amount, thus saving you money and incentivizing the investment. If you contribute $1000 dollars, you get a $1000 removed from your taxable wages, follow me? No more. All contributions are taxed, and instead of getting a tax burden reduction based on the size of your contribution, you get a flat $600 each - making us all EQUAL. And in her testimony, this Teresa professor actually used the phrase, "so we can spread that wealth around." Then, when you retire you get the dividends back in your monthly social security check. Oh, and the sweetener, to sell it to the public? The feds would start your initial "nest egg" at the level it was in August 2008 - before the economic panic. Whose "wealth" will they distribute to get the nest egg back up? Unbelievable - they are not ashamed, and they are no longer hiding their rather radical ideology.

You might think, "well, they'll never get away with such a scheme." Really? Majorities in both Houses and an Obama presidency ... this could become reality my friends.

Now, the crescendo, my 9th symphony if you will in terms of my laying out their unabashed, unapologetic desire to remake America into a socialist Utopia ... Barak's own words. In 2001, as then state senator, he appeared on Chicago's NPR in a program entitled Odyssey 91.5 WBEZ FM, in which "redistribution of wealth" policies were discussed (you can also listen to it yourself, HERE).

OBAMA: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I'd be OK. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterise the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organising and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

HOST: Let's talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you're on Chicago Public Radio.

CALLER:: Hi, um, the gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn't terribly radical. My question is, with economic changes, my question is: Is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place?

HOST: You mean the Court?

CALLER: The courts, or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: You know, maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator here as well as a law professor, but you know, I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change, uh, through the courts. You know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

You know, just look, with very rare examples, during the desegregation era, the Court was willing, for example, to order, you know, changes that cost money to a local school district. And the Court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage. It was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the Court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and - and takes a lot of time.

You know, the Court's just not very good at it. And politically, it's just, it's very hard to legitimise opinions from the Court in that regard.

And so I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, and I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts ....

Gentlemen. This is not a discussion on the validity of wealth redistribution. It's not whether it is right or wrong in this conversation. This is a discussion on the best way to get it done. And I might add, this is not some flippant slip of the tongue in the driveway of a plumber. Rather this is a methodical, deliberative, well thought out argument for how "we" can best go about redistributing wealth.

NOW, after having read or listened to this look through those lenses at his so-called "tax rebate" check plan for 95% of Americans - when the bottom 30% of tax payers already pay zero income taxes and already recoup external taxes (sales, etc) through the EITC. NOW look at his health care plan payed for by tax payers. NOW look at this 401k scheme House Democrats are looking at.

Today's USA Today/Gallup Tracking Poll now has Barak leading Mac by only 2 points. 49% to 47%. THIS is why. I fully believe that if the majority of voting Americans even get a whiff of socialist policy, blatant socialism in this case, coming from Obama, they will reject it. It's now up to McCain in these final 7 days to make sure they get that "whiff." Otherwise we will see what started with The Great Society brought to its logical next step (which is why you don't "start it" in the first place .... *sigh*).