America's 'Socialist' State

[LowriseMinis]

Well, I do know that Obama is planning on a 16-month withdrawal from Iraq, but then the military's efforts will be focused on Afghanistan. I have heard both candidates talk about where the money will come from. Obama's planning to go through line by line and cut programs that aren't working or are no longer needed.

Now, about the rich and their paying taxes. Again, as cited in my little socialism thread, the top 1% of Americans own 38% of the wealth. The bottom 40% of Americans own only 1% of the wealth. Which group should have to pay more?

I'm not out to get anyone, and I don't think on tax issues, any candidate is out to get anyone. Obama's going to roll back taxes for the upper bracket back to what they were under Clinton. I still don't remember the Clinton years as being an especially hard economic time for this nation.

 

[sdmini]

Obama once stated a time table for getting out of Iraq but I thought after many high ranking military officials (including Powell) said, "ya know what terrorist read the paper too, we really don't want to advertise our military strategy" he quit saying that.

American's have had quite a bit of success in Iraq lately. They (US Military) figure only about 1-2% of opposing forces will not negotiate in any fashion. i.e. extremist. Their goal has been to find those extremist and remove them from the equation. The more they remove, the more the Iraq tribes see the force of the US soldiers, the more willing they are to co-operate with the US as they start to view them as the likely winner. The truly sad thing is what will happen to the tribes who finally felt safe enough to co-operate with the American soldiers and then we pull out and leave them high and dry. Do you think we would ever stand a chance with that region again?

Do a little research on Afghanistan, Iraq will be a walk in the park comparatively. Afghanistan and Pakistan (there is a huge region that the Taliban runs that sprawls across the border.) have been invaded and stood off invaders from all over the world including Russia and Britian.

Of course the rich do AND should pay more in taxes but it is such a easy answer to say cut taxes from the middle class and take more for the rich. While taxes may not be an issue with you or I obviously they are a HUGE issue with the majority of the voter. Why else would EVERY politician include taxes in their platform?

"Going through line by line and cut no longer working programs" is just vague enough to sound good while saying bunk.

In 2005 the Democrats opposed a reform bill that would have put an independent party to watch over Fannie and Freddie. (The oversight committee idea was floating around back in 2000 when Clinton was still in office.) Clinton was one who pushed for less stringent credit and down payment requirements for working and middle class families but no the bubble didn't burst while he was in office.

There is no limit to those that played a part in whole economic mess we are in now (Wall Street, Greenspan, Mortgage Brokers, Real estate agents, Bush, Clinton, Congress, home buyers and on and on and on) but due to our economy's structure there is no way ONE person could send the whole thing crumbling down, no matter how much we want to believe it's true. (I had to dig, even though I said I wouldn't, to double check my dates and some facts...if we are still counting Fact Check as a reliable resource.)

For extra credit can anyone tell me how Clinton *indirectly* gave Toyota a leg up in the car industry?

 

[Jill]

I think the analogy just demonstrates a breakdown in actual understanding. Sharing of natural resources within a state is in no way the same as wealth redistribution (socialism). I agree that Palin is not a socialist. Obama and his ideas are.

 

[AppyLover2]

Obama's planning to go through line by line and cut programs that aren't working or are no longer needed.

Sounds like a good idea - unfortunately - it can't be done unless and until the line item veto is restored. As someone pointed out to me a few weeks ago that presidential option is, unfortunately, no longer available/possible.

 

[triedandtrue]

How come no one complained about Bush's trickle down economics, which are the specific epitome of socialism?

And which McCain has backed 100%?

What we're doing right now - bailing out huge banks and corporations - is not capitalism. A capitalistic society does not use the government for support while the people flounder.

Letting the people who live in this nation actually able to _live_ is not freaking socialism, and those of you who think so need to reread your economy books.

The man who voted for the $700 billion financial bailout, the same man who proposed an additional $300 billion bailout so the government can buy up bad mortgages which would effectively nationalize our lending industry, and the same man who presided as a high ranking Senator in the GOP controlled government for 6 solid years that increased government more than any time since FDR and single-handily gave us the largest deficit in history, calls Barack Obama a socialist.

And those that follow without any pure understanding of whats really going on, are just as bad.

I also think its pertinent for anyone who believes McCain is not, essentially, a socialist for the upper class, to watch what he's being saying since 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM

My favorite quote:

"You're willing to let the rich pay more taxes?"

McCain: "Sure I am!"

 

[SweetOpal]

I was thinking about all this last night as I was watching the news and latest findings and what not. Why don't we ever hear this "take from the poor and give to the rich", after all it is just money. People are so concerned about Rich people and what they do with thier money, well maybe the rich don't think the poor manage thier money well either. I don't see why anyone would think that taking from one to give to another is a good thing....If you need more, get out and work for it! The same as the Rich do! They didn't go to work for 8 hours a day 5 days a week to get where they are! Of course that is most of them anyways!

 

[Bassett]

Well said, Jennifer. Thanks.

 

[LowriseMinis]

I think the analogy just demonstrates a breakdown in actual understanding. Sharing of natural resources within a state is in no way the same as wealth redistribution (socialism). I agree that Palin is not a socialist. Obama and his ideas are.

 

[Pepipony]

What is socialism? Its what the other guy does. When your guys/gal does it, then its fiscal responsibility

QUOTE (Jill @ Oct 29 2008, 01:47 AM)

I think the analogy just demonstrates a breakdown in actual understanding. Sharing of natural resources within a state is in no way the same as wealth redistribution (socialism). I agree that Palin is not a socialist. Obama and his ideas are.

In a weird way, sharing of natural resources may be the same as wealth redistribution. Are these resources coming from public or private lands? If they are from private lands, then it is actually wealth redistribution. Taking from the one and giving to the many.