Large Scale Central

Socialism?

General Discussion
#41

Contrary t the claims, Obama is not targeting those most in need–I wish here were. He’s targeting the middle class. He’s not proposing to take money from people who earn it and give it to those who don’t’ work, he’s proposing to take money from one set of people who work, the top 2% and give it to another set of people who work, the middle class.

It sometimes seems to me that a lot of people on this site are stuck in about 1972. Obama is no proposing expanding welfare, or giving handouts to the chronically unemployed–that’s nowhere in his plans. He’s proposing to return tax rates on the upper 2% to what they were in 1998. That’s his big scary radical socialist tax plan.

#42
Ralph Berg said:
Steve Featherkile said:
Interesting article. [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/]"I choose my friends carefully" - Barack H. Obama[/url]
Well Steve, We all socialize with Tony and HJ here on LSC. By your logic, we are all Socialists and Atheists. Welcome to the club, Steve. Ralph
Your argument makes no sense, Ralph. Nice try, though. Steve
#43

Interesting post on another forum from someone who grew up in the Soviet Union.

#44

Or, you could read his tax plan–it’s in the first post in this topic

#45

Can’t stand the truth, eh, Mike? BTW, I’ve read the plan. I don’t believe a word of it.

#46

So I take it there is no chance of Steve voting for Obama?

#47
TonyWalsham said:
So I take it there is no chance of Steve voting for Obama?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I druther run a marathon! :stuck_out_tongue:

Of course, I could always mark the wrong box. Oh, the horror!

#48

The more I hear about Obama and his share the wealth philosophy and the more I hear of this welfare stuff, the better it sounds. I think it is getting time to retire or just quit and stop worrying about making a living or supporting my family. We’ll just let the gummerment (tha’s how they say it around here without teeth, cuss can’t afford them) take care of all me problems.

It may happen, but I still couldn’t vote for that sleezy, grease ball and his radical, white folk hatin wife. Why do all those demicratic females have to yell so much? They redefine the word - “Bitch”.

#49

Oooooops!!!

Another missed vote for Obama. :wink:

#50

Tony,

It was never there. :wink:

#51

I didn’t think so Ric. :wink:

#52

It wasn’t even there before Barry was the candidate.

#53

…but, according to all predictions I have seen, you are going to have to live with him after Jan 21st.

#54

And his “radical, white folk hatin wife”

What the f—??

#55

So why is it when the Republican party under ‘W’ promotes one of the biggest welfare programs of all time to bail out billionares at the expence of the commoner it’s called good fiscal policy, but when the Democrats say we want billionares to share the wealth with those making less it’s called “socialism”?

Seems both sides can’t keep their stink’n paws out of my pockets.

#56
mike omalley said:
And his "radical, white folk hatin wife"

What the f—??


Apparently still believes the whole “whitey” thing

#57

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg?Polarbearsrevenge

#58

Bob,
An interesting and timely article.

I was especially taken by the bit at the end.

“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.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.”

So it seems sharing the wealth is a good idea if you are a Republican doing it but not if you are a Democrat proposing it?

#59

This quote makes the point I’ve been trying to make since this thread started:

“The Republican argument of the moment seems to be that the difference between capitalism and socialism corresponds to the difference between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35 per cent and a top marginal income-tax rate of 39.6 per cent. The latter is what it would be under Obama’s proposal, what it was under President Clinton, and, for that matter, what it will be after 2010 if President Bush’s tax cuts expire on schedule”

Calling Obama socialist is insane argument if you care about what words actually mean, his plan is nothing at all like socialism, but it’s been a smart strategy for the Republicans–if you can get people to believe that this mildly progressive plan equals socialism, you can shut down political discussion to a narrow narrow range.

I like the comparison to “gentle social democracies across the Atlantic, where, in return for higher taxes and without any diminution of civil liberty, people buy themselves excellent public education, anxiety-free health care, and decent public transportation.”

We wouldn’t want that!

#60

Palin is simply projecting what she herself advocated onto someone else, and hoping that the record does not come back to haunt her. In the old days of traditional media (pre-Internet, pre-cable) it might have flown. Now, it won’t.

Of course, any of these idiots that are crying ‘OMG, socialist’ have no idea what real socialism is. Do they think aircraft carriers are free?