In an earlier post I described Barack Obama as a Marxist. A reader left a comment so irritating, I had to make a new post… 
 
You are so off base. Obama is just trying to help the little guy. This has nothing to do with Marxism. There is only so many resources in the world and the corporate fatcats are making a profit off of all of our backs. As Michelle said: "someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more. — Mike K
 
Mike — You say I am off base, yet you provide a quote by Michelle Obama that pretty much sums up the typical Marxist mantra. Unbelievable.
 
The Marxist/Socialist premise is that success should be punished while the non-producer heaps the rewards. I can’t think of a single country in history that has succeeded by governing with those low standards. I can’t think of a single person who has grown one ounce of pride by living "up" to those pathetic standards.
 
Have another latte, Obamabot, and wake up to reality.
 
That’s like telling a child to aim for a "C" in school rather than an "A". Wonderful advice. Why not encourage someone to strive to do better in life? Why not push the boundaries of our potential rather than just tolerate mediocrity?
 
As far as the typical scapegoating of unnamed corporate fat cats you describe from your anti-capitalist playbook, why not use a name we can all match a face to? The Marxist/Socialist/Liberal insistence on using these phantom figures reminds me of Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs: "It puts the lotion on its skin." As long as you don’t humanize your victims, they are easy to destroy.
 
Let’s try something new. Let’s put a face to these fat cat enemies. Let’s use Oprah Winfrey as an example, she’s worth well over a billion dollars…
 
Michelle Obama and her Marxist husband want Oprah to "give up a piece of her pie". The first problem I have with that statement is that it’s not a piece of pie that Michelle wants from Oprah, it’s more like half of it. But why stop there? As long as someone is allowed to decide how much of our money we are allowed to keep, why not take more? 500 million dollars is still more than any one person deserves to have, right? Why not take 90% of her "pie" and leave her with 100 million? As long as you Marxists insist on allowing government to take control over our lives, given unlimited power, I would not be surprised if one of you tried to take that much and more…
 
But not from Oprah, and not from Steven Spielberg, Steve Jobs, or even Tiger Woods. You Marxists will never demonize these people because you approve of the services they provide YOU. That’s the key word to your Marxist movement: YOU. Unnamed corporate fat cats don’t provide YOU with any special services, so YOU choose to demonize them. 
 
Have you ever considered the fact that the CEOs of these unnamed corporations are actually as valuable to their companies and stockholders as Steve Jobs is to Apple? Or Bill Gates is to Microsoft? Of course not! Because it has nothing to do with YOU.
 
Concerning the so-called windfall profits of Big Oil, George Will revealed: "…with the regard to the excess profits of Exxon, the fact is that in terms of profit relative to total income, Coca-Cola made more money so I want to hear first a windfall tax on Coca-Cola". However, Marxists aren’t concerned with percentages, only dollars. Unless it’s Barack Obama’s $845 billion dollar Global Poverty Act. No problem!
 
I don’t doubt you have a kind heart, Mike. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be concerned about the unemployed or the uninsured — even though I bet you have a pretty fat paycheck yourself. The problem is that the remedy to the social ills that keep you up at night will never be resolved by government redistribution of wealth. I know it sounds nice, but just look at your own leader of the Marxist cause, Barack Obama, and think: Did he get where he is through handouts and mediocrity? Or did he work hard and strive to be #1?
 
If your own leader was able to maneuver through the current system to achieve success, why doesn’t he think you can? Maybe because he thinks he’s superior. Maybe because he, like you, uses the term "little guy" when speaking about proud HUMAN BEINGS…
 
You Marxist snobs.