Oh my GOD...SOCIALISM!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!

I've been calling him an outright socialist for months, and he has done nothing to change my mind on the subject. Obama is an out and out socialist who believes in "spreading the wealth around" by his own words.

If you are going to be a socialist at least have the balls to admit it like Wormie and Doc Gonzo do. I disagree with them both ferverently on the subject, but at least they have more balls than Obama does, they admit what their true beliefs are.

desperate whenever someone tells truth about O'Bomb. If someone wears a McCain or Palin T-Shirt, they are racists.

When someone puts a bumper sticker on, they are automatically racist and Bush supporter.

When someone supports McCain, they are racists, and uneducated.

When someone talks about O'Bombs associations the answer you get are:

He was 8 years old

It didn't happen when he was there

He didn't hear it but he defended it first threw the priest under the bus later.

He steals someone else's line and makes it his own no one asks questions.

When he makes obscure participation in legislative effort or when it gets through, it becomes his accomplishment.

All because of what.... Reverse Racism?

The point is that the word "socialist" is something that is supposed to instill fear and horror in people, when not all aspects of socialism (just like not all aspects of capitalism...or Buddhism...or whatever-ism...just humanity in general) are "bad"...

and that McCain is yet again playing the politics of fear.

McSame, indeed.

Obama is in favor of wealth distribution, that makes him a socialist in my book and by every definition I have ever heard. That is what he is, either you are for socialism or you are against it. I am against it. At least be honest in your views unlike your hero Obama.

As far as fear goes, we should be afraid of an openly socialist nominee for POTUS. This country has successfully fought the battle against communism from without, I would hate to see us lose the battle from within.

The saying "Those who would value safety over freedom deserve neither" applies to economics as well as National Security. Have we really fallen so far as a nation that we look to government to provide "everything" for us?

It's not that we fear socialism, some of us realize it's just a very ineffective and ineffecient system that creates mediocrity, and stifles innovation, creativity, risk taking, etc. It does get to your point GaGambler on the role and responsibility of govt in our life. My 85 year old mom, a life long liberal, honestly believes that govt needs to play an active and involved role in everyone's life. When I press her on the issue, she admits that the average American is not smart enough to make their decisions. Example is the partial, and I emphasize the word partial, privitatizion of Social Security. As my mom has stated repeatedly, most Americans would squander away any retirement savings, and in the end we would need to take care of them.

Just look at the poor individual decisions many Americans make, including buying a home they can't afford, to failing to save for their kids college or their own retirement. So at the end of the day, and per my mom, government needs to step in and control/dictate our future. Unfortunately the redistrubiton of wealth will create a very medicore America.

but please tell me the difference between McCain's brand of Socialism and Obama's relative to this:

"He (McCain) also was sharply critical of the Bush administration, saying it should be more aggressive in buying up the home mortgages of those trapped by high interest rates and falling housing values.

"The administration is not doing it. The secretary of the Treasury is not doing it," McCain told the crowd. "We need to buy up these mortgages, give you a mortgage that you can afford, so you can pay your mortgage and realize the American Dream of owning your home."

Is this also NOT a redistribution of wealth?

When you figure it out...please let me know...

The Dude

with unmitiaged support of McCain.

I don't believe in the bailout, and I don't believe that irresponsible behavior should be rewarded, and so far everyone's plan including McCain's has been sorely lacking.

Without government interference the markets would have eventually fixed themselves, the fix might have been a little bloodier, but it would have been a more permanent fix. The bailout plan, as is fixes nothing. The underlying problems still exist and they will fester until ultimately will we have another crisis.

That said McCain is still by far the lesser of the evils. McCain is being dragged into socialistic fixes, Obama relishes redistributing America's wealth.  Obama doesn't believe in just having a level playing field, he wants a basic do-over economically, where everyone starts over equally and stays there whether deservedly or not.

...was taken during a Republican administration, and with it's strong support, if not insistence.

Paulson's move to nationalize our banking system was right out of a socialist's playbook.  The true free market capitalists would have let the whole thing go down in flames and let the "free market" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be) figure it out.

The fact is we don't live in a true "free market" capitalist democracy, nor have we for a long time.  

yeah, why is it that Schumpeter's notion of "creative destruction" implicit in the operations of a capitaalist market fails to find any favor when it's the wealth and sttus and position of the caoitalist overlords which are threatened with destruction?

Bush's new program : No Multi-Millionaire Left Behind?  This one, no doubt, will be fully funded.

Sarah Palin couldn't have done it better.  You didn't answer the question...you just made a speech...or maybe you'd like to use a lifeline and make a call.

I guess you're both cut from the same...good old Republican cloth, not that I give a shit.  I'm voting for Lyndon LaRouche.

Also, I guess by your standards, Richard Nixon would have been considered a Communist by instituting Wage and Price Controls twice and opening up a dialogue with Mousey Dong.



-- Modified on 10/18/2008 5:45:30 PM

Maybe you might want to throw in even one example/statement which would provide a gram of support for your statement about Obama "relishing" redistribution of wealth, or that he wants everyone to "start over equally and stay there".

Really...even one reasonable example would be fine.  

I think what you will offer will simply be quotes that might support Obama prefers a more progressive tax policy than you might prefer.  Because that's about all it comes down to.

But...I'd be interested to hear your example(s) in any event.

Not sure "creative destruction" really applies to what is going on here (or, would be going on here), but I agree with your general sentiment.

The so-called "free market capitalists" are like a bunch of mean mother fucker little kids, who when the other kids finally decide to kick their ass they run back to suck on their mom's tits.  They love their so called freedom so long as their mommy's protection and nipple is there when they need it.

That's what he is I tell ya.  He admitted it to Joe the Plumber and that's proof enough for me.  How can you not be a Neo-Bolshevik if you want to take money away from smart rich people and give it to lazy stupid people that are poor.  They're just going to waste it on drugs, partying and casino gambling and such.

Hurry, you need to get this printed on 100,000 t-shirts and get people wearing them.  People care about this neo-Bolshevik shit - word needs to get out.

You are onto something here man - run with it!

I know, conservatives here will say, "no duh, Zin." The Cold War was brought home when Bush Sr. declared Dukakis was unqualified for being a Liberal. The old "L" word was made unpatriotic and an equivalent of Communism.

. . . in a Roosevelt sense of the word. And Franklin Roosevelt was actually a centrist compared to some other serious factions afoot in the country. To his left was Eugene Debs, who was a communist and had gained the party quite a foothold in the USA.

While you might have heard the word "Socialism", I have experienced it so I don't fear it.

The point is, when Government decides how much money you should keep, and how much of your money is going to be distributed to lazy bums, you may call it wealth distribution, or you may call it socialism.

Why the fuck is O'Bomb against businesses and raise their taxes. There are many countries the businesses can move for realizing lower tax. Do you have a clue how much money US Businesses keep in Foreign countries because lower taxes. This year the administration gave lower taxes for a short period of time if US Businesses brought their money back. Basically eliminated double taxation, i.e., if they paid taxes in a foreign country, they wont be taxed at the full corporate tax rate. Trillions of dollars poured in.

Guess, under O'Bombs administration Corporate tax rates will increase and business will keep money in other countries to avoid high taxes. Who will be hurt? Not global corporations like GE and IBM, etc., but the small businesses making over $250K. I know Gas station owners and liquor store owners making more than that. The liquor store I frequent makes $25 mil a year. I have friend with 3 Texaco stations making way more than $250k.

I suppose taking money from them and giving to some bum is what, if not income distribution/socialism?

Get it.

Middle class would have been wiped out. Yes, markets would have fixed itself eventually. Unfortunately, US was not alone in this mess. The only countries least affected (they are affected but not to extend) are emerging economies of Asia and Brazil. Eventuality would have been US loosing its economic power and becoming even bigger debtor nation.

Who do you think would have brought all the depressed real estate at rock bottom prices. That would be China, and when the real estate recovers, who would be wealthier, that would be China. What will be the economic clout of the US? Behind China.

You have got to see the big picture, i.e., think for yourself rather than repeating partisan crap.

Btw, conservatives Republicans are FAR more Socialists than the Dems:

1.  Biggest increase in size of federal government?  A Conservative Republican named DUBYA.  Before him?  H. W. Bush.  AND Before Him? Ronald Reagan.


2.  Biggest increase in taxes ever?

A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN NAMED H. W. Bush.


You Conservatives Republicans continue to mud-sling and name call.  Now, you bring out the "Socialist" word.  Well, guess what, you guys are by far the biggest socialists out there.

Ironic, ain't it?

Well let's first talk about Obama being an evil socialist. What is socialism? Socialism refers to an economic theory of social organization advocating social or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. Asking a society whose top 1% controls more wealth than its lower 90% to carry more weight in taxes is not an example of Socialism. Nor is a nation’s government accepting responsibility that the health of its constituents is an inalienable right to be extended to all.

Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market, rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is not bad in concept. It affords any person through the means of "entrepreneurship" (more on this later) the freedom to build a mountain from a mole. However, under the term in which we live, capitalism can be better described by using the term "pimps and ho's" with the elite (or top 1%) being the pimps and the rest of us ho's. Some of us ho's will prosper "because ho's gotta eat too", but by design there will always be a vast disparity between that the top and the bottom. This is why things in this country don't make sense. How does it make sense that the wealthiest nation in the world has the highest rate of poverty as compared against its wealth? How is it that the wealthiest nation in the world ranks 38th in life expectancy as it relates to death of natural cause?

I don't know how many of you watched Bill Maher yesterday but there was an interesting quote cited (I don't remember who made the quote) but it said something like: Capitalism can be viewed as a game of poker where a couple of the players control 90% of the chips. At a certain point the only way that the other players can remain in the game is to borrow. Once the controlling players are either no longer willing or able to lend the game ends.

What "trickle down" is about is giving those few players that control 90% of the chips even more chips so they can continue to lend chips out to the struggling players. These players will continue to struggle under this system but the game in theory can be extended a little longer.

There's another quote from Marx that reads: "Capitalism tends to improve manufacturing or technological development efficiencies. As technological innovation becomes more and more streamlined/mechanized, the need for entrepreneurship declines". "Capitalism eventually becomes a bureaucratic process of large corporations and organizations, no longer requiring entrepreneurship. As this happens, capitalism loses its primary driver (the entrepreneur) and dies out".

Capitalism (under the form in which we practice):
A. forsakes the concerns of the MAJORITY (lower 90%) in favor of the MINORITY (upper 1%)
&
B. validates the top 15% and deceives the lower 85% into worshiping an ideal that is good in its definition but evil in its application

What Senator Obama is proposing is not an end of capitalism or "the free market". What's he's proposing is adopting some ideals that one can argue could be related to socialism in nature. What he's talking about is empowering the middle class with more chips SO THE GAME CAN KEEP GOING. But the difference is that by empowering the middle class innovation and "entrepreneurship" can again be sparked in this country and new industries like (Energy Technology) can spring up. What's wrong with that if the system is broken? I won't tell you what's wrong with it but I will tell you why you think it's wrong. It's mainly this: http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip. It's the reason that the McCain campaign has been harping on the phrase "spreading the wealth" because it taps into this mindset. It's what Tim Wise (noted above) calls the "overseer complex".

The Republican Party has been a perpetrator of this complex that teaches us to protect our ideal of enslaving ourselves to the elite without even knowing that we're doing it. What he talks about is that WE ARE ALL SLAVES under this system but the entire racist movement was designed to divert attention away from the enslavers and give the whites an enemy (blacks) to place blame on as an explanation as to why in spite of their hard work, they didn't seem to be getting ahead.

The Republican Party has demonized anything that goes against this system. The term socialist is now basically a slur not far behind terrorist and is used in a way to describe why America is so much better than every other nation (most of whom practice forms of socialism). We're not talking about a "redistribution of wealth" what we’re talking about is greed. The greed that is destroying our great nation that was founded on the principal that no man had any right over another in his pursuit of the American dream. We're not talking about socialism, what were talking about is the fact that are not living up to the principles that this country was founded upon. What we're talking about is that under these principals everyone's life should hold the same value, regardless to whether you are in the highest tax bracket and can afford the best health insurance that money can buy or if you were born into poverty and thus can't afford to protect your health. Your life.

Republicans (or should I say "My Friends"), you've been fed the wrong dose of medicine. As a result you're suffering from delusions and hearing voices in your head of Fox News correspondents that are telling you that your mission is to protect these ideals. The same ideals that hurt YOU unless you become one of those that are holding most of the chips. But we all know that will never happen. None the less, like a good soldier you march into battle without even knowing who or what you're fighting for


This is a clip from The Pathology of Privilege: Racism, White Denial & the Costs of Inequality, the newly released video from the Media Education Foundation. The video is of a speech given by Tim Wise at Mt. Holyoke College, October 1, 2007.

http://www.redroom.com/video/tim-wise-creation-whiteness-clip

more here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Xe1kX7Wsc

-- Modified on 10/19/2008 3:35:47 PM

-- Modified on 10/19/2008 3:35:24 PM