Claims that Obama is a socialist.

[sophist]

So this is the demise of the Republican party?  Going out like a schoolyard bully that just got his ass kicked but takes the time to talk shit while he limps off. Typical.

McCain's comments that Obama is a socialist flat out piss me off.  I've been pretty reserved amongst this political turmoil of late but this socialism bullshit is just hitting below the belt.

So long Repubs...  you won't be missed.

Obama is a socialist. 

Sorry dude. its reality.  Go read a copy of the communist manifesto (in the back there is a checklist of 10 items).  Here is the checklist:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

The USA currently has six (I have highlighted the number), Obama wishes to add two more to the list (Health care and centralization of media, and energy).  To utter the phrase, "spread the wealth around" is to paraphrase the quote "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

The least Obama/Biden could do is be honest about it (they haven't). 

I don't have a problem with admitting that, as I know good socialism trumps bad capitalism. 

[mattstick]

The problem is the perception of the word "Socialism", not the tenants of a very practical form of governing.

And where did Obama say he wants to centralize the media and/or energy?  I'm pretty sure he didn't.

[sophist]

Obama audio, he discusses the proper means for implementing a wealth redistribution system. 

The problem is the perception of the word "Socialism", not the tenants of a very practical form of governing.

And where did Obama say he wants to centralize the media and/or energy?  I'm pretty sure he didn't.

media= fairness doctrine. 

energy = his energy plan.  Its centralized and runs through government. 

[sls.stormyrider]

So this is the demise of the Republican party?  Going out like a schoolyard bully that just got his ass kicked but takes the time to talk shit while he limps off. Typical.

McCain's comments that Obama is a socialist flat out piss me off.  I've been pretty reserved amongst this political turmoil of late but this socialism bullshit is just hitting below the belt.

So long Repubs...  you won't be missed.

Obama is a socialist. 

Sorry dude. its reality.  Go read a copy of the communist manifesto (in the back there is a checklist of 10 items).  Here is the checklist:

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

The USA currently has six (I have highlighted the number), Obama wishes to add two more to the list (Health care and centralization of media, and energy).  To utter the phrase, "spread the wealth around" is to paraphrase the quote "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

The least Obama/Biden could do is be honest about it (they haven't). 

I don't have a problem with admitting that, as I know good socialism trumps bad capitalism. 

Sorry to disagree with you but
we don't have #1, don't have 8 in that there are no "industrial armies".
re 5 - we don't have a national state owned bank - or we didn't until the banking industry fucked us and needed (asked for) a gov't bail out, and we don't confiscate property of emigrants (4).
he hasn't called for socialized medicine (news flash - gov't is already heavily involved in medicine. you just have to be in your 60's to qualify for Medicare). I also haven't heard him call for nationalization of energy, unless you call tax breaks for investments in alternative fuels socialist.

[mattstick]

Seems like a little bit of a stretch.  Actually a pretty big one.

All energy plans run through the government - do you consider Dick Cheney's closed-door old boys network energy plan Socialist?

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

That's not privatizing energy, he's investing in private efforts.

As for the media, I've read this up and down and don't see anything about a public, national media outlet or anything that could remotely be considered Socialist.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

[sophist]

Sorry to disagree with you but
we don't have #1, don't have 8 in that there are no "industrial armies".
re 5 - we don't have a national state owned bank - or we didn't until the banking industry fucked us and needed (asked for) a gov't bail out, and we don't confiscate property of emigrants (4).

1- translates to taxes on property, which we do have, as for public purpose, I'd call that eminent domain, which again we do have.   

4- Patriot Act 2001.  So yes we do, and in addition we hold them without trial.

5- We have a centralized banking system, thus a banking system run by government. 

8-I would call some unions "industrialized armies" as they can be violent. 

Seems like a little bit of a stretch.  Actually a pretty big one.

All energy plans run through the government - do you consider Dick Cheney's closed-door old boys network energy plan Socialist?

Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

That's not privatizing energy, he's investing in private efforts.

As for the media, I've read this up and down and don't see anything about a public, national media outlet or anything that could remotely be considered Socialist.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

I would call Cheney's plan fascist as it only benefits the few, which falls into that respective definition.  Where as Obama's plan is beneficial to the public, which is the point of socialism, to look out for society.  His energy plan is using government is an intermediate, which goes to the root of what I stated.  Its using government to fix a problem, and that is Marx 101.  If it (energy independence) was left to our own devices (i.e. the market) that would be private efforts and the market would create new energy.  Instead, the new technology will be regulated and made affordable for all people.  Do you really think Obama is going to let companies develop new technologies and put them on the open market?  Most businesses are in it for money, and that contradicts the purpose of alternative energy. Thus the new alternatives will be centralized.  Just like the current energy is centralized.  Not just anyone can sell gas or home heating, there are barriers to enter that market.   

As for the media, are you familiar with the fairness doctrine?  I'm going to assume you are not, so forgive my assumption if you are.  It deals with allocating TV, radio, and print space to ensure that a well rounded view is presented to the public.  For example, I will be a talk show host that is going to discuss political theory "X" and its application to law "Y."  I would have to RJ on my show (to represent the left and plug his 2012 campaign) and I would have Bvaz on my show (to represent the right).  Each would have equal time to discuss the matter, and certain rules about content would apply to my show. 

This limits what can be done, and in turn it would put blow hards like Limbaugh out of business (which is debatable in terms of positive/negative effects).  I happen to disagree with the fairness doctrine because I feel in this day and age people have to choice to seek out their outlets of entertainment and information.  The doctrine limits that choice.   

[rowjimmy]

You guys are suckers if you are letting McCain suck you into this bullshit discussion.

[mattstick]

I am familiar with the basics of the Fairness Doctrine, but thanks for running that down for me.  FWIW, I agree with the basic ideas it presents but the reality is it is unenforceable, even in Canada on the CBC which is owned and operated by the Federal government they still present a fairly overall liberal perspective on most issues.  Bias in the media is inherent and cannot be eliminated.

What you're doing here is looking at political philosophical ideals like Marxism, Socialism and Conservatism and trying to apply them to the current state of the US Government which over the years has taken on various aspects of many political philosophical ideals.  

The McCain/Palin ticket is trying to label Obama as a Socialist to scare people, without actually explaining any of the intricacies of policy or real-world politics that you and I understand.

So I suppose if you want to point out how some of Obama's policies use Socialist principles, that's fine - just make sure you point out well they work in other nations around the world at the same time.

[Guyute]

Dear United States of America,

You are being retarded.

One of the essential jobs of the government is to redistribute wealth so that society can function.  Maybe you've heard of taxes?  I know you guys like to dump tea in the ocean and everything but it's time to get real - this is 2008.

Please stop being retarded.

Regards,

Mattstick

Agreed, just saying that the 32% they are taking is already enough.  I work 3 months out of the year for everyone else, don't want to make it 4.

That said, my guess is Obama will win, which will be good on a social level.  We will have a repeat of Clinton's first few month and an across the board tax increase except the very poor.  We will have continued economic issues next year, the mid-year elections will create a Republican Congress and in 8 years we will be hailing that combination for pulling us out of a recession and creating economic growth.

I think that's just a little bit exaggerated. I'm assuming you're doing that to make a point.

edit to add- the GOP did a great job with a deficit the 1st 6 yrs of the Bush administration (not that the Dems did that much better the last 2 yrs). Also every one of Clinton's operating budgets, including the 1st 2 years before Newt took over the House, was balanced.

No exaggeration, except my math is off, 30% so almost 4 months out of the year for others, an increase would push it closer to 4.5-5.  I think my estimates of the next 8 years are probably spot on.

[sophist]

I don't see anything wrong with the label, and thats why I'm arguing.  I think its stupid that we (society) fear certain ideologies because of misconceptions.   

just make sure you point out well they work in other nations around the world at the same time.

exactly what I was getting at but you beat me to it. 

[sls.stormyrider]

I guess you're interpretation of how these are applied is a bit more "liberal" (no political pun intended) than mine.

[sophist]

I guess you're interpretation of how these are applied is a bit more "liberal" (no political pun intended) than mine.

My interpretation comes from reading Marx and Engel.  Both were adamant about the role of the state and its application to reality.  The manifesto also contains a referendum where Marx discusses the mutations of his vision, and he references the form of a pseudo socialist state, a state we are becoming. 

I'm the same way about the constitution, having read Locke, I see many procedures that contradict the intended functions of the constitution. The original form of government for this country was European libertarianism, and we have vastly strayed from that model. 

Personally, I do endorse leftist libertarianism, which isn't akin to the current system or the original format of our government.  I'll gladly take a little more socialism over the possibility that the religious right would get the chance to implement its form of state based theocracy.     

[sls.stormyrider]

understood

I guess you're interpretation of how these are applied is a bit more "liberal" (no political pun intended) than mine.

My interpretation comes from reading Marx and Engel.  Both were adamant about the role of the state and its application to reality.  The manifesto also contains a referendum where Marx discusses the mutations of his vision, and he references the form of a pseudo socialist state, a state we are becoming. 

I'm the same way about the constitution, having read Locke, I see many procedures that contradict the intended functions of the constitution. The original form of government for this country was European libertarianism, and we have vastly strayed from that model. 

Personally, I do endorse leftist libertarianism, which isn't akin to the current system or the original format of our government.  I'll gladly take a little more socialism over the possibility that the religious right would get the chance to implement its form of state based theocracy.     

true, especially if you were a follower of Jefferson (as opposed to Adams). For me, we should be somewhere between the two. Exactly where? - well, that's the hard part.

[Ri©h]

The McCain/Palin ticket is trying to label Obama as a Socialist to scare people, without actually explaining any of the intricacies of policy or real-world politics that you and I understand.

This was my initial point to the thread.  Not only McCain/Palin but the ridiculous talk radio douchebags like Limbaugh, Hannity, et al.  It's scare tactics, plain and simple. People who only sit on one side of the fence are being spoon fed this crap like it was liquid opium.  Numbing their minds and making them feel good at the same time that Obama's ideas and principles are going to be bad for the country.  The Republican party has embarrassed this country long enough.  Time for them to go.

Btw, Matt.  Thanks for that info to pass to my father-in-law.   :-D

[Hicks]

Dear United States of America,

You are being retarded.

One of the essential jobs of the government is to redistribute wealth so that society can function.  Maybe you've heard of taxes?  I know you guys like to dump tea in the ocean and everything but it's time to get real - this is 2008.

Please stop being retarded.

Regards,

Mattstick

Agreed, just saying that the 32% they are taking is already enough.  I work 3 months out of the year for everyone else, don't want to make it 4.

That said, my guess is Obama will win, which will be good on a social level.  We will have a repeat of Clinton's first few month and an across the board tax increase except the very poor.  We will have continued economic issues next year, the mid-year elections will create a Republican Congress and in 8 years we will be hailing that combination for pulling us out of a recession and creating economic growth.

I think that's just a little bit exaggerated. I'm assuming you're doing that to make a point.

edit to add- the GOP did a great job with a deficit the 1st 6 yrs of the Bush administration (not that the Dems did that much better the last 2 yrs). Also every one of Clinton's operating budgets, including the 1st 2 years before Newt took over the House, was balanced.

No exaggeration, except my math is off, 30% so almost 4 months out of the year for others, an increase would push it closer to 4.5-5.  I think my estimates of the next 8 years are probably spot on.

Dude, if you make less than 250K you will not see a tax hike!

How many times must it be said, or is there nothing that can sway you from believing the Repub scare tactics?