OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[RobVarak]

Obama's first tax plan.......anyone under 250,000
Obama's second tax plan...anyone under 200,000
Biden say's.....................150,000
Richardson say's............120,00

WTF is the number? Anyone.

The number is meaningless. The entire tax cut promise was balderdash from the moment it was uttered. It's a mirage, like Bill Clinton's promises in '96. It's amazing how short the electorate's memory is.

I've been amused by the shock expressed by Obama and his surrogates over the socialism charges. These are people who should revel in the term, and would be if they weren't running for office LOL Hell, Obama's record is to the left of the only avowed Socialist in the Senate!

[davet010]

You lot wouldn't know a socialist if he walked up to you and punched you in the face. It seems to be a word that you throw around a lot, which is interesting in what is probably the only democracy without a mass social democratic party in it.

Over here, Obama would be classified as a classical liberal (or maybe in the right wing of the Labour party if you stretch a couple of points) whereas McCain would be somewhere on the right of the Conservative party, and that gimlet-eyed harridan running with him looks like the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, which is enough to send a shudder down the spine of anyone with an IQ of over 70 or who's daddy hasn't set a trust fund up for them.

Oh, and so you know - I can say that Obama is not be a proper socialist..because I'm one, and I know these things.

[ScoopBrady]

I'm taking a break until after the elections but I couldn't resist stopping by to post this. Sorry if somebody beat me to it. I don't know the current tone of the thread but hopefully this lightens it up a bit.

<embed src="http://www.g4tv.com/lv3/34590" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" name="VideoPlayer" width="480" height="418" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" />

[Teal]

Is that DL content?!? That's hilarious!

What's most hilarious is Obama blowing s*** up-the irony is fabulous.

[wco81]

Republicans have been using the "socialist" label for decades.

Dewey called Truman Socialist and "socialized medicine" goes back even before the Depression.

But they believe in socialism for bankers and hedge fund managers.

[JRod]

You lot wouldn't know a socialist if he walked up to you and punched you in the face. It seems to be a word that you throw around a lot, which is interesting in what is probably the only democracy without a mass social democratic party in it.

Over here, Obama would be classified as a classical liberal (or maybe in the right wing of the Labour party if you stretch a couple of points) whereas McCain would be somewhere on the right of the Conservative party, and that gimlet-eyed harridan running with him looks like the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, which is enough to send a shudder down the spine of anyone with an IQ of over 70 or who's daddy hasn't set a trust fund up for them.

Oh, and so you know - I can say that Obama is not be a proper socialist..because I'm one, and I know these things.

Doesn't matter. The style of fear politics by the McCain/Palin team preys on the fears of populism rather the rationale of citizenship.

That's not to say everything about Obama is true. But the smears attached to Obama have been eerily similar to a McCarthy trial. He's a socialist, he's a communist. His tax policies will create a tax welfare state. The Ayers and Rev. Wright are character assasination attempts. They didn't stick because the right couldn't prove that Obama's policies are the same or influenced by these two people. Had McCain proved that or Hillary for that matter, Obama would have been toast early this year.

People have completely lost it if they think the President can turn the nation into a socialist nation.

Though I will say, I think this is a true test for the Republican Party for what is their soul. Listening to the right-wing extremists will probably cause one of the biggest shifts in a very short time - two years.

They'll refocus and we'll see what the new GOP looks like.

[XXXIV]

No one making under $100,000 on this board has to worry.

I think the dems on this board are big enough, care enough and believe enough in Obama's promises and plans that in the very unlikely event he is lying and your taxes go up they will cover the new taxes for you.

[Feanor]

You lot wouldn't know a socialist if he walked up to you and punched you in the face. It seems to be a word that you throw around a lot, which is interesting in what is probably the only democracy without a mass social democratic party in it.

+ oo.

God forbid some of the guys in this thread ever move to another Western country and have to deal with an actual socialist party having power. They'll have a heart attack or a stroke or both.

[XXXIV]

You lot wouldn't know a socialist if he walked up to you and punched you in the face. It seems to be a word that you throw around a lot, which is interesting in what is probably the only democracy without a mass social democratic party in it.

+ oo.

God forbid some of the guys in this thread ever move to another Western country, any other Western country, and have to deal with an actual socialist party. They'll have a heart attack or a stroke or both.

...As I have lived and have parents living in one now I must agree ...but then again maybe thats why they are scred now?

[greggsand]

You lot wouldn't know a socialist if he walked up to you and punched you in the face. It seems to be a word that you throw around a lot, which is interesting in what is probably the only democracy without a mass social democratic party in it.

+ oo.

God forbid some of the guys in this thread ever move to another Western country and have to deal with an actual socialist party having power. They'll have a heart attack or a stroke or both.

A lot of my clients are oversees (UK, Aus, and German mainly), a number of them have told me Americans have no idea how far we are from being "socialists".

[Jared]

It's all a bunch of bogeymen thrown out by the campaign because they're down, and think they can scare parts of the electorate into voting for them using these meaningless terms.

If Obama's plans are "socialist" because they raise taxes on the top 5% and lower taxes on the middle class, then why isn't Palin's policy of taking money from oil companies to give each Alaskan a check for over $3,000 a year? Or for those that think Obama's proposed use of refundable tax credits is "welfare", but McCain's proposal to do the same not?

For most of the claims made by McCain/Palin that are attacks are Obama, you can find similar or even more egregious examples done by McCain/Palin (showing how senseless these claims are). This "socialist" stupidity is just one of many.

[RobVarak]

You lot wouldn't know a socialist if he walked up to you and punched you in the face. It seems to be a word that you throw around a lot, which is interesting in what is probably the only democracy without a mass social democratic party in it.

+ oo.

God forbid some of the guys in this thread ever move to another Western country and have to deal with an actual socialist party having power. They'll have a heart attack or a stroke or both.

A lot of my clients are oversees (UK, Aus, and German mainly), a number of them have told me Americans have no idea how far we are from being "socialists".

God forbid, indeed.

It's not like there isn't a history of socialism in the U.S. And Sanders is essentially a socialist, even if he's given up the party affiliation to caucus with the Democrats. And as I said, if your record is to the left of a bona fide socialist, I hardly see the reason that being called a socialist should cause a furor. I would think, having read his books, that in any setting other than a Presidential campaign Obama would welcome the label.

Incidentally, just because we don't have a major socialist party at this time doesn't mean that elements of socialism haven't been co-opted into major party platforms. I find the charges of parochialism in this regard unpersuasive. The US doesn't have an ultra-nationalist authoritarian party either (anti-GOP gibes excepted ) but that doesn't mean that we don't know what one looks like enough to reject its tenets...

[Jared]

It's all a bunch of bogeymen thrown out by the campaign because they're down, and think they can scare parts of the electorate into voting for them using these meaningless terms.

If Obama's plans are "socialist" because they raise taxes on the top 5% and lower taxes on the middle class, then why isn't Palin's policy of taking money from oil companies to give each Alaskan a check for over $3,000 a year? Or for those that think Obama's proposed use of refundable tax credits is "welfare", but McCain's proposal to do the same not? Or all the corporate welfare isn't socialism, but money for poor people is?

For most of the claims made by McCain/Palin that are attacks are Obama, you can find similar or even more egregious examples done by McCain/Palin (showing how senseless these claims are). This "socialist" stupidity is just one of many.

[Feanor]

Check out Nandor Tanzcos, member of the New Zealand Green Party and nine year MP.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GNrbLq-ZlUI

Now that's what I call socialism. (The thing on his head is holding his dreadlocks up.)

[RobVarak]

It's all a bunch of bogeymen thrown out by the campaign because they're down, and think they can scare parts of the electorate into voting for them using these meaningless terms.

And that's a gross simplification made for the purpose of turning attention away from the fact that Obama's background and philosophy are far more leftist than his moderate campaign would have Americans believe.

If Obama's plans are "socialist" because they raise taxes on the top 5% and lower taxes on the middle class, then why isn't Palin's policy of taking money from oil companies to give each Alaskan a check for over $3,000 a year? Or for those that think Obama's proposed use of refundable tax credits is "welfare", but McCain's proposal to do the same not? Or all the corporate welfare isn't socialism, but money for poor people is?

For most of the claims made by McCain/Palin that are attacks are Obama, you can find similar or even more egregious examples done by McCain/Palin (showing how senseless these claims are). This "socialist" stupidity is just one of many.

With respect to the hydrocarbon refunds, Palin is returning money that is generated by an asset that is already theirs. It's a recognition, all to rare in government, that the people's money is just that: Not the government's money but the population's.

Progressive taxation isn't in and of itself socialist, but when the justification for said system transcends the need to fund government and extends to issues of "fairness" and wealth redistribution it becomes more so.

Seriously, have any of your read anything about Obama other than his platform? Have any of you read his books, looked at his background? This is a man who's openly critical of the lack of radicalism in the Warren court. He's co-opted Sunstein's theory of the living constitution and bemoaned the lack of redistributive change generated by the civil rights movement due to its reliance on the courts. He's a devotee of Saul Alinsky's radical liberalism and even uses his nomencature when talking about implementing community organizers to create coalitions of power which can effect "social justice" and redistributive socio-economic change by redistributing wealth.

None of thost terms is used by coincidence. And that is neither the language nor the philosophy of a conventional liberal, much less the even-keeled centrist character that Obama and his handlers have constructed.

I can understand some people being suckered by this theater, but for people who really know and support Obama "accusations" of socialism should be met with shrugs or grins rather than desperate evasion and dismissals.

[Naples39]

I'll agree with Jared that throwing out the term 'socialist' is more of a desperate play by the McCain campaign. Calling Obama a 'socialist' is more a use of jargon, but still, there is undoubtedly truth to the claim that Obama is more in favor of wealth redistribution policies than McCain or the republicans.

Disputing whether or not Obama is a 'socialist' is just dodging the real question. I've argued a lot here with guys like Hobbes, but at least he has simply come out and said he simply agrees with more wealth redistribution, which is a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion. I just don't understand why so many simply refuse to acknowledge Obama's support of increased wealth redistribution, and choose instead to argue he's not 'socialist,' because that's wholly missing the point of the criticism. It's similar to the press attacking Joe-the-Plumber personally instead of pressing Obama on the force of his question.

...and that gimlet-eyed harridan running with him looks like the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, which is enough to send a shudder down the spine of anyone with an IQ of over 70 or who's daddy hasn't set a trust fund up for them.

The 'crusty old white guy' part of the Republican party is the part that doesn't like Palin at all. It's the middle/low class 'real' Americans that like Palin, but I guess they're all retarded if you are correct.

That's not to say everything about Obama is true. But the smears attached to Obama have been eerily similar to a McCarthy trial. He's a socialist, he's a communist. His tax policies will create a tax welfare state. The Ayers and Rev. Wright are character assasination attempts.

I personally think an examination of Obama's acquaintances demand review. He is a relatively new face in American politics, with essentially no history of legislating. His campaign is built on vague slogans like 'change.' In the face of all this uncertainty, it absolutely screams for a review of additional factors. If you're about to elect a man president for 4 years, people should demand to know more about this man, and his acquaintances are one of the best ways to inform ourselves about the man behind the words and public facade. I've actually been surprised that more democrats haven't wanted to push the inquiries themselves during the primaries.

Also, how people can look at the fact that, for 20 years he attended a church led by a very politically active and controversial preacher, yet conclude that this in no way informs us about Obama's views or perspectives continues to blow my mind. (No, I'm not saying that means he has the same views, but it is still informative.)

I mean if I came on here I told you that for the last 20 years I attended a snake-handling church with a vocal preacher who says natural disasters have been brought upon Americans by our tolerance of gays, how many here would listen to anything I have to say after that admission? No one. Yet for a less extreme version towards Obama, we are supposed to forget it completely? Obama's not an idiot, and HIS CHOICE to attend this church for 20 YEARS says something.

Though I will say, I think this is a true test for the Republican Party for what is their soul. Listening to the right-wing extremists will probably cause one of the biggest shifts in a very short time - two years.

This will be an interesting time for the republican party assuming an Obama win. The democrats were faced with the same situation in 2004 after the embarrassing Kerry defeat, and it led to a distinct left shift. It's exactly this shift that has soured me on the party, though I am still a registered democrat.

I only hope this loss can lead the republican party back to its roots and away from the evangelical wing that has blossomed in the last 20 years. Having both major political parties be so far apart could lead the country to an identity crisis and gridlock, and thus makes me very nervous.

[Jared]

This is a man who's openly critical of the lack of radicalism in the Warren court.

I will quote from the Volokh Conspiracy, a generally right-leaning blog. (And I'm assuming you're talking about this interview.)

http://volokh.com/posts/1225086611.shtml

The Drudge Report is blaring this audio of what appears to be an interview of Barack Obama in 2001 discussing the Warren Court and economic redistribution. Based on the accompanying video, it seems that the person who posted the audio is trying to paint Obama as a radical: The suggestion is that the audio shows Obama lamenting the Warren Court's lack of radicalism in the area of economic redistribution.

Based on the audio posted, however, I find it hard to identify Obama's normative take. When Obama says that he's "not optimistic" about using the courts for major economic reform, and when he points out the practical and institutional problems of doing so, it's not entirely clear whether he is (a) gently telling the caller why the courts won't and shouldn't do such things; (b) noting the difficulties of using the courts to engage in economic reform but not intending to express a normative view; or (c) suggesting that he would have wanted the Warren Court to have tried to take on such a project.

My best sense is that Obama was intending (a), as his point seems to be that the 60s reformers were too court-focused. But at the very least, it's not at all clear that Obama had (c) in mind. It doesn't help that only parts of the audio are posted: Given the obvious bias of the person who edited the audio, it's probably a decent bet that the rest of the audio makes the comments seem more innocuous than they do in the excerpts

I'd file this under another bogeyman.

As for hydrocarbon refunds, pardon me, but "the people" aren't the ones who got that oil out of the ground, but it was the oil companies. And I'll be damned if the gov't is taking money from those companies that worked hard to find the oil, drill, refine, etc.; all so that some lazy "citizens" who don't do anything to earn it get all this money. Dang oilfare queens.

As for progressive taxation, fairness has always been a big part of the tax, going back to the writings of Adam Smith and the ideas of Teddy Roosevelt. Basically, you're saying that if there is any "fairness" principle to progressive taxation, then it then starts to become socialist. Really?

Anyways, I'll champion both a) not calling Obama a socialist and b) "more wealth redistribution"; meaning a more progressive tax structure. The idea of a progressive tax is great, and I've got absolutely no problems with those making $250k a year paying more in taxes (more, meaning something closer to Clinton-level taxes) and those in the middle and lower classes paying less. Now if Obama was planning on taxing the rich at 90% or something absurd, then I would be against that. But he's not.

(Or is he? I think he might be planning to nationalize everything (every store will be an IKEA!) and replace the Department of Defense with the Department of Love and Kind Bud, and take everyone with a TV larger than 42" and give them a radio with only one station: NPR!!!)

[greggsand]

Yeah, Rob's "Palin hydrocarbon" explanation (on how it was different that BO's ideology) was an interesting take to say the least. I'm not sure how it's any different (other than scale). I can't wait til she's prez & I get a nice check for all of the new US offshore drilling! Drill! Drill!

[matthewk]

If Obama's plans are "socialist" because they raise taxes on the top 5% and lower taxes on the middle class, then why isn't Palin's policy of taking money from oil companies to give each Alaskan a check for over $3,000 a year? Or for those that think Obama's proposed use of refundable tax credits is "welfare", but McCain's proposal to do the same not?

1. It was a contract agreed upon by both sides during negotiation.
2. Every person in Alaska gets the same check.
3. The companies are paying for the use of the state's (and therefore the people's) resources.

The two are very different scenarios.

[matthewk]

I have spoken with a few people I know who came to the US from socialist countries. They lived in those countries for many years, so they know what it was like. It's not like they came over at the age of 2.

All of them are voting for McCain. A big reason they give is that they came here to get away from the type of government that Obama is pushing towards.

[matthewk]

Why is every criticism of Obama either "fear mongering", "a bogeyman", or any one of the other catchy terms used to call the issue B.S.?

[matthewk]

and that gimlet-eyed harridan running with him looks like the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, which is enough to send a shudder down the spine of anyone with an IQ of over 70 or who's daddy hasn't set a trust fund up for them.

Not quite a personal attack, but you're basically saying that if you like Palin you're retarded.

[Brando70]

Disputing whether or not Obama is a 'socialist' is just dodging the real question. I've argued a lot here with guys like Hobbes, but at least he has simply come out and said he simply agrees with more wealth redistribution, which is a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion. I just don't understand why so many simply refuse to acknowledge Obama's support of increased wealth redistribution, and choose instead to argue he's not 'socialist,' because that's wholly missing the point of the criticism. It's similar to the press attacking Joe-the-Plumber personally instead of pressing Obama on the force of his question.

The problem is that "wealth redistribution" as it's being thrown about is not being used in context. It's being used as shorthand for communism, and that's not what's being proposed by a long shot. We're not going to see a radical restructuring of the American economic profile if Obama wins. The poorest Americans will get an increase in welfare in the form of tax rebates, and the richest will see a minor increase in their taxes. However, the rules are still going to favor the wealthy, just not to the extent that they do now.

Rob has clearly done his homework, but to accept his conclusion that Obama is not just a liberal, but a radical, you have to believe that his entire Senatorial campaign, and even his time in the Illinois Senate, was a big act, a ruse to conceal his radical Manchurian Candidate directive. His "most liberal Senator" tag gets trotted out, without any mention that he was 16th in his first year and 10th in his second. Furthermore, "most liberal" in and of itself is a relative term. It only tells you that, in relation to other Senators (who tend to be more conservative than the more diverse House), Obama was the most liberal last year.

The thing that has bothered me the most about the socialism thing is how much any attempt to empower people at the lower rungs of society stirs up the hornets in the nest of entrenched power in this country. We give tax money to companies for things all the time--like oil subsidies. When those companies make money, they make profits, and the profits not only do not go back to the taxpayer, they enrich a fairly small group of people in the company -- the executives and shareholders who benefit from stock increases. Personally, I don't really have much of a problem with the government helping out the rich and corporations. I see the government as a resource which can help the country achieve certain goals better than purely private solutions. Yet, when the government attempts to do things for those at the bottom rungs of society, in terms of welfare and social services, some people get outraged at "forced charity" and "redistribution of wealth." It's the old welfare queen scare tactic all over again.

So, I understand if people feel Obama is not ready to be president, or oppose his policies because they feel like they will impede growth, hinder national security, etc. There have been a lot of logical arguments back and forth on these issues within these threads.

The socialism label, on the other hand, is simply an attempt to paint a relatively minor change in tax laws into some giant commie conspiracy to destroy capitalism. Again, I understand people arguing about the issue of handing rebates to non-taxpayers. I just feel the implication that this policy will turn the US into the new Soviet Union is wildly exaggerated.

[XXXIV]

and that gimlet-eyed harridan running with him looks like the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, which is enough to send a shudder down the spine of anyone with an IQ of over 70 or who's daddy hasn't set a trust fund up for them.

Not quite a personal attack, but you're basically saying that if you like Palin you're retarded.

Yeah...maybe ... but its pretty weak and lacks any and all imagination.

[XXXIV]

I just feel the implication that this policy will turn the US into the new Soviet Union is wildly exaggerated.

Baby steps comrade ...baby steps .