The question posed at Arlen Specter’s town hall was obscene—yet representative of so many in the tea party crowd who want to derail the discussion on health care reform.

News flash, you idiot: The Constitution says abso-freaking-lutely nothing about whether or not our economy is capitalist or socialist. Not one fucking thing. It says that Congress has the power to levy and collect taxes. It says that Congress has the power to govern interstate commerce. It says nothing about whether or not the government get into the business of nationalized health-care. Nothing.

Allow me to repeat so I am absolutely clear:

The U.S. Constitution says not one fucking thing about government managed (nationalized) health care.

So shut the fuck up, sit the fuck down, and listen to what is being proposed. Speak up if you have a cogent thought. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

You want to scream at a Congress-critter to “Read the bill!”? Fine. You can do that, as soon as you’ve read the constitution. Because the U.S. Constitution … wait for it …

… promotes socialism:

Article I also permits Congress to levy and collect taxes to promote the general welfare (Section 8, “Enumerated Powers”).

Don’t pull out the U.S. Constitution unless you know what the hell you’re talking about.

But that was then.

As the economic merry-go-round has continued to turn the last 10-20 years, I’ve constantly been in the process of re-evaluating and reassessing my beliefs on these matters. Today, I can look back on myself from 10 years ago and think, “you’re a fucking idiot.”

One of the things that really made me sit up and take notice was a thought that crossed my mind about a month or two ago. I was sitting and reading the news of what was occurring with the economic collapse and how we intended to cope with the future given the current circumstances. Two questions kept coming back to me:

1. What could we have done to prevent this?

2. How can we prevent this from happening again?

But capitalism has a fundamental flaw. There are some things that are just inherently rooted as part of society—things that are so essential that were we to suddenly find ourselves without them, life as we know it would cease to exist.

Today, we hear constantly that the banks like AIG, Citigroup, and Bank of America are “too big to fail.” Is that so? If they are too big to fail; if their failure would have such a disastrous effect on the American economy, then it is in our national interest to ensure that these banks are heavily regulated to protect them from engaging in any undue risk, or nationalized to such a degree that the guarantees of the American people to protect against failure are equally recognized in those banks’ successes.

And then there are others that we don’t really see until things get dire. On the verge of collapse, auto manufacturers have suddenly become “too big to fail” since their bankruptcy would put hundreds of thousands of workers on the streets with no job. Financial institutions are considered “too big to fail,” not just because of the hundreds of thousands of people who would be out of work, but because their failure would cause financial markets and the economy to seize up completely.

Private ownership of these kinds of business—driven by capitalistic profit-seeking—can actually prevent them from serving their functional purpose. Capitalism isn’t some sort of Ayn Rand economic masturbatory fantasy. None of these businesses—the banks, the manufacturers, or any other private interest found on the stock exchange—are the province of a single individual or the singular idea of one person. They are collectives of hangers-on to the exclusion of the rest of society. They are occupants of the lifeboats from the Titanic stealing away from the disaster, while the rest of us go down with the ship.

Capitalism is as dead as communism.

Joe’s question to Obama was this:

After an extended explanation by Obama and some follow up questions from Joe, Obama summed up with this:

… and it is this comment that has the Republicans squealing in agony, because “taxes are bad.”

As I have mentioned previously, the language is meant to frame the debate in exceedingly simplistic terms. In the end, it becomes a case where anyone who suggests a tax in any way, shape, or form—or anyone who does not advocate for the abolition of taxes—is a “socialist” or a “Marxist,” advocating “welfare,” the “redistribution of wealth,” an “economic nanny state,” or any other pejorative connotation of government actually providing something more to its citizens than a fire department and national defense.

Thus, people like Glenn Beck make a blanket accusation that Democrats are “Marxists” (via Crooks and Liars):

Oh really?

Since when is it Marxist to suggest that those who benefit from an economic system have an obligation to fund it?

If you really want to live in a law and order society, they you have to pay taxes. There’s no way around it. Government isn’t some sort of economic clown car that you can pull out whatever you want, but put in nothing.

Freedom isn’t free. You have to pay for it.

… and that’s what taxes are for.