Obama, McCain, socialism and kid toys

A trillion dollars in added spending? Yeah, no Republican would do that. No, they would add two trillion like that guy you can't fool again in office right now.

Sen. McCain, give us something better and maybe you have a shot. With what you've been laying down, you can not be surprised at all that Obama looks to be taking this thing.

Walks like a socialist, quacks like a socialist....has to be a socialist.

What are the chances that this post will see the light of day on this Pravda site?

Funny stuff...Obama actually is to the political right of McCain on some issues, such as their healthcare plans and their plans to help homeowners in foreclosure. Read the facts.

The Republicans have spent the last 8 years practicing socialism for the wealthy--redistributing all the wealth of the nation from the poor to the rich. No wonder McCain keeps harping about Obama's plan to reverse the tide -- thanks to McCain's heiress wife, he's been a beneficiary of it and doesn't want it to go away!

"I mean redistribution of wealth, take money from one group, give it to others is fundamental principal of some of these quote 'socialist' countries.

"Redistributing wealth", as in paying taxes and using them to fund various social services for the greater good, like schools and roads and museums (and wars)? So under McCain there will be zero "redistribution of wealth"? Because if not, he's a socialist, you know.

As for this "socialist", I like it here in France. I might just stay here :)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

McCain was a strong supporter of state involvement in our banking industry including the proposal to purchase shares of some of the nations largest banks. Nationalization of our nation's financial industry is pure socialism. McCain, you are a socialist.

Mr. McCain is absolutely correct is his assertion that Barack Obama is a Socialist and is advocating socialism. This is supported not only by Obama's voting and speaking record, but also by his own writings and by his choice of academic associates while in college. If you advocate the end of capitalism in this country...then vote for Obama.

From Abraham Lincoln:

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people' s initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

I beleive this is what amounts to socialism, it not fair to take from one group to give to another group that didn't earn it. Just like the analogy go to a restraunt eat and pay your bill but not leave a tip for the waiter but give it to a pan handler outside. The waiter earned it but didn't get it the pan handler didn't earn it but got it.

McShame can say Obama is really Ernie from Sesame Street and there are some people willing to believe it because their hearts have an evil agenda. McShame's words simply suits their purpose to hate this man so they lap it up. It disgusts me.

Of course Obama the Unqualified is a socialist. There is no doubt. Take from the rich and middle class, and don't give anything to the poor, that way everyone will be poor, and p##sed off! Obama has stated many a time what his views of taxation, and that he supports socialization of medicine, private retirement funds, housing, business, and anything else to make government even more overbearing.

Socialist - Damn right Obama is!

The Republicans are having a field day with Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment. Obama needs to stand up to these socialism charges; this is a nice first step but he needs to be much more forceful about it. Stop letting the Republicans play on people's fears; Obama's tax plan is not socialism!

So because McCain is so against Socialism, I assume he will shut down Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
Let's not stop there, Veteran's benefits are also redistibution of our tax money. The Home interest rate deduction is socialism, spreading renters' taxes to home owners. How about the tax exemptions for kids, if I get an exemption, a childless couple will have to pay more, why redistribute to families. Farm subsidies? that takes money from city people to give to "Small town America" , those good people don't want socialism, subsidies be gone...
What crapola.

I wonder why Obama hasn't made hay over McCain's comment that he's running for "Commander in Chief." He's not. He's running for President; Commander in Chief (of the military) is but one duty of the President.

The only explanation other than "misspeaking" is that he is running for dictator of the country, and not for president.

The military may have a Commander in Chief, but a free nation cannot have a "commander." His rhetoric sounds eerily similar to referring to the President of Iran as the "Supreme Leader."

McCain either has no idea what, exactly, he's running for (in spite of having lost several campaigns for president in the past), or he's declaring that under his rule, the office of the President will be converted to the office of the Commander in Chief.

Semantics are obviously fodder in this campaign, so I think that Obama should make the most of McCain's un-American comments.

Socialist! Even the actual socialists won't call him one. McCain better take a good hard look at history, economic theory and what his own party is so happy to do recently (government buyouts of private sector banking). Socialist is as socialist does. A tax cut for the middle class isn't any more socialist than the Bailout (err.. Rescue) Plan.

Calling Obama a socialist is the main reason McCain is down in the polls. Most people see it as over-the-top, and don't want another over-the-top president who demonizes the other side.

George Bush gave tax cuts to people in higher brackets. Agreed? They are generally referred to as "the Bush tax cuts". Agreed? You with me? Now...BEFORE those tax cuts, what was the US of A? Socialist? If we dump those tax cuts, is that socialism? The socialism argument is a red herring. People like their tax cuts. That decision was "right". The fact that they did not perform the service provided, which is to suggest that tax cuts will "grow the pie" somehow, is overlooked by the people who received those tax cuts. And so, we say, "Give 'em back. You didn't do anything with them. You took the social services government provided, and didn't do your tickle-down capitalist duty. So...give 'em back."

Karen -- All due respect, Obama doesn't have to stand up to these charges at all. He's way ahead, and all this nonsense McNutt is coming up with look and sound like the desperation tactics they are. McNutt is not damaging Obama, he's hurting himself. He's run a lousy campaign that is dragging down fellow Republicans. After the election, the only person in the Senate who will have lunch with him will be Lieberman. Though I wouldn't put it past Obama to extend an olive branch and give him something constructive to do in Congress to save his reputation in the last years of his public life. Better than McNutt deserves, though. What a sad hypocrite he's become.

No socialist believes in private ownership of property.

Obama believes in private ownership of property.

Ergo, Obama is not a socialist.

Karl Marx is rolling over in his grave with the thought that a corporatist like Obama would be considered anything like a socialist. You wingnuts need to deal with substance, not labels. I realize that labels and bumperstickers represent the zenith of your thought capacity, but try anyway.

"The Republicans have spent the last 8 years practicing socialism for the wealthy--redistributing all the wealth of the nation from the poor to the rich."

YES, AND THE MOST RECENT ROUND OF PAYOFFS TO THE RICH WENT FOR THE WALL STREET BAILOUT A FEW WEEKS AGO. GUESS WHAT? THE WALL STREET EXECS STILL GET THEIR BONUS PACKAGES--THIS TIME PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS. HOW MUCH MONEY DID HALLIBURTON MAKE THIS YEAR FOR THE WAR THAT NO ONE WANTS? HOW MUCH IS EXXON GOING TO MAKE COURTESY OF YOU BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WON'T PASS A WINDFALL TAX? MCCAIN IS A BILLIONAIRE AND HE'S JUST MORE OF THE SAME. A VOTE FOR THE GOP IS A VOTE FOR THE SAME BS WE'VE PUT UP WITH FOR 8 YEARS!

Note to R: Lincoln did not say, "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich." These quotes are actually from Rev. William J. H. Boetcker and have often been misattributed to Lincoln. Boetcker's principles were called "The Ten Carrots." Check your sources!

Hey, when the government buys banks isn't that socialism? Hey, isn't the fact that top corporations pay less in taxes than small businesses a form of welfare? Where are the conservatives in the Republican party--i don't see one. I do see a Democrat with some great ideas on reducing government spending in the long run--alot of people do too--that's why he'll win.

It's amazing to me how otherwise seemingly intelligent people can be so easily mislead by the obvious distortions of what has actually been said. If in fact just a reasonable effort is made to see if what's alleged to have been said can be substantiated, then these "mis-statements" would not even be repeated. The truth is whoever is so gullable as to believe the nonsense that's coming from the McCain camp must be seriously challenged to be able to recognize the truth. I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of the people so against the tax solutions recommended by Senator Obama don't even qualify as the 5% that would be expected to contribute their proportionately "fair share", but are in fact among the 95% that would receive a long overdue relief of carrying the tax burden. Wake up before it's too late and examine the "fear package" that's being delivered to you.

I'm reading the consititution right now and for the life of me I can't find the part that allows for the government to take your money with the threat of deadly force and give that money to me. Which part of the constitution should I be reading?

I tried the bill of rights too and all I can come up with is the amendment that says "The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated."

Am I missing something here?

Also I'm wondering this:
If I go and tell someone I'll give them a jug of rum and some cigarettes in exchange for their vote, that is illegal. But if I am the one running for office and instead promise them part of your earnings in exchange for their vote, that is not only legal, but encouraged?

How can this be?

Thanks

So, I suppose taking $600 BILLION from the bottom 80% and giving it to the top 1%, as has happened in the past 8 years under Bush/McCain programs, is ok.

McCain, with his 9 houses and 13 cars, doesn't want to pay more in taxes. He's doing just fine with the tax cuts that Bush and he have provided to the ulta-wealthy. That has cost us in the middle class $8,000 in the past 8 years. How about just giving some of that back instead of keeping it for the rich...and giving them another $300 billion under McCain's plan???

I am the Middle Class, and I will not stan for the rich in the US to take advantage of a system made for them to take more from me. Vote Obama and the MIddle Class has a chance, vote McSenile and the middle class is officially dead. Remeber the 5th of November.

Particularly in response to Mr. Bottorff's comment, it seems to me an overstatement to call Obama a socialist. Our economy, like the economies of our major allies (Germany, Great Britain, Canada, etc.) incorporates elements of both socialism and capitlaism; it's a balance, a mix. Social Security, the GI Bill, financial aid for students, Medicare--these are all, strictly speaking, socialistic endeavors to the extent that such programs use taxpayer dollars to address the needs of specific portions of the broader taxpaying public--wealth redistribution, in other words. Surely few would wish to see such basic forms of public assistance eliminated. The question is one of balance, or proportion: which candidate leans more heavily towards a purer version of capitalism and which one leans more towards a more European or Canadian approach to management of taxpayer dollars? There is legitimate basis for serious debate as to which perspective is most prudent, but it is arguably reckless to bandy terms like socialism about with little attention to their formal definitions.

* * * * *
Posted by: a blinkin | October 29, 2008 6:03 PM
.
Your first premise is false and therefore your syllogism produces a false result. It is simply not true that no socialist believes in private property. Some, like Marxists, do not believe in private property, but Marxists and others who do not believe in private property not exhaust the category of socialists. The end-game for socialists is to bring about economic justice. If they can do so through periodic mass confiscation and redistribution rather than total control, then they have so much less to do to accomplish their redistributive goals. This is, in fact, the way socialism in done in Europe today - although, to us, it is obscured by such euphemisms as "Social Democracy."
.
Just take a look at Denmark. It's a sterling example of so-called redistributive justice. Its parliament is dominated by socialists. Their effective tax rate is about 70% if one includes excise taxes, luxury taxes and a 25% sales tax. As of 2002, 40% of its adult population lived on government transfer income, full-time, all-year, a third of them being of working age. The government does operate a number of businesses and industries, but does not own or operate all of Denmark's businesses by any stretch. And, yes, they have their problems. See http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=905
.
So, you can go ahead and believe that Obama is not a socialist because he believes in private property. You would be wrong, but this is a free country and you can believe anything you like. Even if you insist on this game of semantics, you still cannot deny that his policies are identical to those of European "Social Democrats" - which, for those of us who still cherish freedom, is bad enough.

* * * * *
Posted by: Centurion | October 29, 2008 6:40 PM
.
No, it is not Okay. This is McCain's Achilles' heel in railing against Obama as a socialist. He suffers from no small amount of hypocrisy for blasting Obambi, The Savior for being a socialist, while practicing socialism himself. I can guarantee that many fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party are totally steamed at McCain for voting in favor of that boondoggle.
.
Socialism: It's not just for poor people any more.

* * * * *
Posted by: Matt Da Bears fan | October 29, 2008 6:32 PM
.
Give up, Matt. It's not in there. The reference in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 to "General Welfare" was intended to be a limitation on the use of taxation power - i.e. Congress may only tax to raise revenue, and not to destroy or prohibit (although they have anyway). However, those who take the Constitution as advisory only (read progressive Democrats) have seen to it that the reference to "General Welfare" has been distorted to embody a power, separate from the taxing power, to allow the federal government to spend money for just about anything - including social welfare programs - and, thus, do an end run around the Tenth Amendment. I leave you with Madison's objection to this construction as adequate proof that such was never the intent of the framers. It can be found in "The Federalist Papers," Federalist No. 41.

So, where's Johns flag pin? Oh right he's white and a Republican its ok for him not to wear one.

Who is the real socialist in this campaign? Sarah Palin (from the New Yorker):

"The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”"

Bwahahahaha

Darn socialists. Always feeding the hungry or caring for the sick or providing for the old and infirm. It's about time you people stopped thinking about the people who spend the money that drives this economy and started focussing on the welfare of the wealthy 1%. Can you even imagine the impact Obama's 3% tax increase will have on the 35 million dollar golden parachute of the AIG manager whose credit default swap trades bankrupted his company? He may never work again (if we're lucky) and that 3% will strip another million dollars from him. It's truly shocking.

All you Obama supporters - keep drinking the liberal media and far left koolaid. You clearly have no mind of your own. So be sure to elect the President who will run your lives and do the thinking for you.

Can you Republican idiots LEARN about communism/socialism before you get all worked up over it? Obama is not even close to being a socialist. You can't be a socialist if you are worth a couple million dollars like Obama. You can read the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for free on numerous websites, you know. But I guess having the RNC think for you is easier.

But I guess actually knowing what you're talking about is "elitism" instead of "education", and we just can't have that. Hooray for ignorance!