Election 2008: Vote - But Not For Sen. Obama the Socialist
67Obama speaks on socialism
Obama is a Socialist
Sen. Obama is a socialist.
After this bold statement, I can only imagine that you are feeling some outrage - especially if you consider yourself to be a true-blooded American and are a Sen. Obama supporter. I don't blame you for feeling some outrage. But before you get all mad and angry - consider what I am saying.
Socialism isn't all bad. Socialism's main tenet is about wealth redistribution - that capitalism creates class warfare because a small section of the society controls the capital of the society and that concentrates the wealth. Socialism involves economic and political interventionism. A socialist believes in nationalization of industries - or in the US a socialist belief would be selective nationalization of certain industries. They believe in a tax-based welfare system and mixed economies (like the US).
If you are all for wealth redistribution - then go ahead and vote for Obama. But consider what the means for you and everyone else.
I have no problem with tax-funded welfare programs that work. I have no problem with tax-funded welfare programs to help those who CANNOT help themselves, who have served their time and need some assistance to continue living (the elderly) and to help those who are too young to help themselves (children).
I have a problem with tax-funded welfare programs that do nothing to get people off welfare programs. With disability programs that give full disability benefits to people who can work - but who choose not to work because they don't want to work where they can. With programs that continue welfare benefits while people are in school (they have access to financial aid, like everyone else - although they have access to more financial aid because they have less income) - I have a problem with those. I have a problem sending my money overseas in "welfare" programs that don't work, have been proven not to work, and don't provide any benefit. I have problems with my money going towards things that don't produce any benefits.
What percentage of welfare recipients can work - but don't want to. Or don't want to work in the jobs available. I mean, I understand that crop picking isn't a fun job, but it is a job. Working at McDonald's isn't my idea of a great job, but if I didn't have one, and I had a family to provide for, or even myself to provide for, I would take it and see what else I can do. In order for a welfare program to work, and not encourage more welfare, you have to get people off it. Or throw them off welfare if they don't try to get off themselves.
Redistribution of wealth is a socialist view point. Obama wants to redistribute wealth. He wants to take your money - and my money - and create programs to provide health care for all, homes for all, housing for all, and a certain level of income equality for all. That is wealth redistribution.
I live in a society, and taxes are the price I pay. But if I am paying a lot of taxes, I should see some benefit. In Germany and other socialist-capitalist-democratic societies, their population sees the benefits of their taxes. They have good roads, public transportation that works and runs on time, effective rehabilitation programs for criminals, good schools, and health care. The comment I am going to get is that Germany is smaller than the US and easier to manage. Ok - but that doesn't negate what I am saying - if I pay taxes I want something in return.
The American Dream used to be that you can work as hard as you want and build yourself up to the level you want. Any number of small business owners have realized that dream for themselves, as well as people like Bill Gates and Hugh Hefner. Why should I even buy into the American Dream concept if all that the system does is take my money away and give it to someone else?
I believe that you have to teach the man to fish, not simply give him a fish. Obama wants to give the men fish, not teach them to fish. That is a socialist viewpoint.
In the last Presidential debate, Obama said he was for wealth redistribution. Why? Because it will create equality.
No - it will create resentment and laziness. People who don't want to work can receive benefits. People who don't want to spend their money for health care spend mine. Schools who are failing because they cannot teach children to read and write spend my money on football equipment and new fields.
I'm not crazy - my wealth is mine. It is the beauty of being an American that I can have my own wealth. Mine is mine - and not yours - and certainly not someone else's to spread around as they wish.
Some Definitions of Socialism
- An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system ...countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-12.htm
- An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. ...www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html
- A political philosophy advocating substantial public involvement, through government ownership, in the means of production and distribution.enbv.narod.ru/text/Econom/ib/str/261.html
- Economic system centered on the belief that the means of production (such as land) should be collectively owned and that market exchange should be replaced by collectively controlled distribution based on social needs.www.geocities.com/brianmyhre/3Def.htm
- The view that the government should own and control major industrieswww.mcwdn.org/ECONOMICS/EcoGlossary.html
- A political system where the means of production are controlled by the workers and all things are shared evenly. Socialist policies provide for government funding of many basic needs such as food, shelter, and medical care.www.regentsprep.org/Regents/global/vocab/topic.cfm
- the importance of class and argues that the interests of workers and capitalists are inherently antagonistic. ...www.chuckallan.com/fccj/amh2020/Vocabulary.html
- Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Links to More Information
- Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days
Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college. - Obama's Socialist Connections
- Obama’s International Socialist Connections
- OBAMA'S IDEAS FOR A RADICAL COURT - New York Post
In a 2001 radio interview that's just come to light, Barack Obama discussed the Supreme Court's role in redistributing wealth. Call it Obama's "Joe the Plumber meets Justice... - Is America Ready for Obama? Is America Ready for a Socialist?
- New president's economic clout not assured - Economy in Turmoil
- First thoughts: In with the new... - First Read - msnbc.com
So Obama is a Socialit
He is. There is nothing more I can say on the matter. Disagree all you want. But the facts point out that he is into wealth-redistribution.
In an interview, in 2001, he said that there needed to be "redistributive change," and that he regretted that the Supreme Court hadn't been more radical. He described the Supreme Court's refusal to take up issues of wealth redistribution as "a tragedy."
I believe that Rev. Wright has influenced Obama. You don't have someone who is your spiritual leader for years and not be influenced by him. Rev. Wright believe that reparations should be paid to the descendants of slave - and paid exclusively by white Americans. That would spread the wealth. Especially because a lot of white Americans today cannot trace their heritage back to a US slave owner - mine traces back to Poland in 2 generations. So you want to take my money because I am white and spread it around. Lovely. The next thing on this list is what - reparations to Mexican-Americans because we have California, New Mexico and the West?
If Obama really wants to do all this without raising taxes, we are going to have more debt and burden those who earn money in the next generation to pay for all his social welfare programs (that don't work) for this generation. So his income redistribution isn't limited to effecting this generation, but will roll over into the next as well.
Obama has spent his life looking towards socialism. A lot of people have radical ideas in college, and grow out of them. He, however, searched out for socialist teachers and inspiration - including "carefully" choosing his friends who were socialism. He talks in his memoirs about the importance of choosing his friends and teachers who were socialist. If you didn't believe those tings, why would you write about them in your books?
Obama's interviews and books make it clear that he supports redistribution of wealth.
He is a socialist.
Please don't vote for him. I'm not saying to vote for McCain (what a shame that we only have 2 real choices) - but please don't vote for Sen. Obama - he's a socialist.
CommentsLoading...
I think we always deserve mercy :) But I agree. One of the tenants of Christianity is caring for those who CANNOT CARE FOR THEMSELVES. There is nothing in the Bible, or teachings of Jesus, that would indicate it is our responsibility to spread the wealth around for those who will not work for it. We should provide a means for people to live - not extravegantly or even well, but live - for those who cannot provide for themselves. But not for those who simply won't try to provide for themselves.
ANd where does black liberation theology - which OBama believes in - come into Christianity? Where does being entitled to anything come into the picture?
Americans aren't entitled to anything. You get what you work for. And when you are down - the family is supposed to help you out. When the family fails - then the government has to do it, nad we get stuck indebt. We have become an irresponsible nation of people who think they are entitled to things rather than a responsible nation of people who work for things.
This is true. I see so many women on welfare who are perfectly healthy and well-able to work, with a dozen kid teaching her kids how to do the same...draw a check for sitting at home. Sadly, it's becoming a famly tradition. Proverbs tell us that if people who are able to work and don't, they don't eat. It's a different story, like you said, if someone is not able and has no family to help. But those are very rare circumstances. Although I'm sure that that welfare mother loves to hear Obama talking about giving her more wealth from those Americans who actually do work. One of the 7 deadly sins is laziness and the US is quickly becoming a nation of lazy people. Obama will make it moreso. Why work if you can steal someone else's money, or rather have Obama steal it for you and mail it to you? Black liberation theology doesn't come into Christianity. It can't.
he is a social worker not a socialist.. America has be intigrating socialistic goverment control for many years way befor Obama ever showed his smiling face for Presidency. Even if He is not elected their will still be a Socialist goverment in place to dictate to us their demands for our money. I believe in a far and unbiased approach to producing informatoinal content that is what a true jurnalist should do! But then again what are your credintials? I don't believe that your a journal ist and have the sworn duty to put non-biased content out for others to see, even if you do not agree with this, it still doesn't make it wrong or right to push propaganda out into this world to muddy the murky waters of truth.
Would you prefer I used the word Marxist? Ok. Obama is a Marxist. He wants to control the nation and all of it's money, control our guns, continue to let babies be murdered. Have you even been listening to the man talk? "Spreading the wealth" is Obama's words, not mine. Might want to find out some truth yourself before you help to ruin our nation. This is a truthful hub and well-written. You apparently are not a journalist, I just read a simple post you wrote, and you don't even know when to use capital letters and small letters. A first grader knows this.
I just want to say that I believe Obama is a socialist. If you think journalist provide unbiased coverage you are wrong. Everyone has a bias. Most journalistic bias is very liberal. That is why Obama gets a free pass and McCain gets hammered. It is why the Republican primary candidates were roasted over a fire, and hardly anyone asked Obama tough questions. No journalist pointed out that in the VP deabtes Biden didn't even know which part of the Constitution a VP's duties and responsibilities came from. No one mentioned it. But they all mentioned Palin's mistakes. That's is biased. When Biden and Obama get asked about wealth redistribution and they blow if off, and there are no follow ups - that is bias. When McCain gets hammered on defense spending and tax cuts but not one question to make Obama detail how he is going to pay for his plans - that is bias.
Bias exists in the journalistic world. It just does. Idid my research - and this is what I believe. I am reporting on the truth as I see it. Which is my only reponsibility as a writer. To be truthful, use facts and put them out there. This is what I do.
She's right again, if you don't believe her, turn on MSNBC, listen to Keith Olberman. He preaches that Obama is the savior of the world and McCain is horrible for shooting people in Nam during the WAR. Yeah, no journalist leans left or right. And I have some ocean front propety in Arizona for sale I'd like to talk to you about. You are drinking Obama's grape coolaid!
"Great hub!"
"Interesting opinion!"
CEO E.S.A.H.S. Association
Great hub Nw. The media is obviously biased and I don't think anyone could dispute that. I am encouraged today to find the race tightening to three points according to Rasmussen and Gallup. I don't think the polls are very accurate but they are always skewed in favor of the democratic candidate so this news would put McCain ahead. The internet has become an alternative source of information and it is effectively combating the biased press and it is working. They have chosen to throw their integrity out the window in order to further their political ideology. They have made a huge miscalculation judging by the diminishing subscriptions and dwindling revenues. Things always seem to have a way of evening out. Keep up the good work spreading the truth, it is working. Dean.
Obama isn't a socialist. This is McCain's desperation
No, actually it's Obama's words.
It is Obama's words. He said " I believe in income redistribution." That is socialism.
thanks for all the kind thoughts! I thought it was all going to be hate mail.
You make my points for me never mind that I was only making a quick comment and I never claimed to be a journalist. Why the low blow for a few typos, when I did it at a rapid pace? Read my stuff I don't mind cause I do make mistakes but it's not the typos but the content that matters. Besides I am too busy to try and help you. Your a lost cause believe what you want to. But remember this! Just because you think it and say it don't make it the truth. Besides your a socialist too, only a socialist would know all their doctrine.
I still believe in your right to spout your ridiculious garbage. It is in the constitution. Something called freedom of speech.
I don't hate you. You just need to clear your mind of the hatred and wake up from your dilusions.
Oh yeah by the way I was a republican untill this year. I live in a republican state Indiana has been prodominatly republican for the past 40+ years. I saw Gov Palin today infact, at a rally near my home town and I was not impressed at all sad to say.
Speking about wealth redistribution - did you notice that US$ 700 BN of taxpayers' money was just redistributed to the rich capitalists? Capitalism is all about wealth redistribution - upwards.
Capitalism isn't about wealth redistribution. Capitalism is about freedom of choice, free markets and freedom from government regulation. It is about each person working for themselves to gain what they can gain. It is motivated by the individual.
I never claimed our country was free of socialist influences. My favorite saying right now is that we are capitalists when times are good, and socialists when times are bad (like now). I am not a socialist. I don't believe in their principles. The way you learn about their principles is either through (1) reading, or (2) extensive education in political science - both of which I have.
I did notice that there was $700 billion redirected - and I objected strongly to it. I wrote letters to everyone saying I thought it was a bad idea.
And I wanted to say - I am not the only one saying Obama's a socialist. It is way more people than just me. Including him - read his books. He clearly demonstrates a socialist view point. It is not hidden. He simply calls it "equality." I call it socialism. You have to name things what they are - and he's a socialist.
Please don't talk down to me. I am well aware of how to learn things. Capitalism and Socialism are theories. In practice, what we have is consumerism. There is a class of corporate moneycrats whom no-one has elected and no-one can remove. It is because they hold the power that markets are free when it suits them and bailed out with taxpayers money when the 'freedom' fails, Capitalism and Communism both degenerate into totalitarianism when ordinary people become lethargic and unpoliticised, as has happened in the US.
What Obama has said, from his own mouth, which I have seen and heard him do, is that he wants to take from those who work and make money and give it to those who are not financially up to there those are who do work. He can call it 'equality' or whatever he wants to. It's socialism. Even Joe called it what it was. He has worked hard to make a good business and Obama will take money he has worked hard to earn and give it to those who don't want to work. How fair or ethical is that? It's not. I guess 'equality' is the new pc word for socialism. However, that's one thing that I am not = PC. I don't see the use in it. I think it's part of what's making America so bad today. I don't agree with how our government is doing every single thing right now, but I SURE do not agree with Obama taking the money we work hard for just so people can sit home and do nothing. He will be making it to where no one will want to work. I mean, under him, why work? He'll just take from those who do and send you a check? Why work if he's going to take what you make away from you? He is for destroying America. Plain and simple.
I would deny that we are ina totalitarian society. We truely aren't. I didn't mean to talk down to you - I meant to tell deskjockeywriter that the fact that I know what socialism is doesn't mean I am one. The markets are bailed out because of Congress. Let's not blame people for what they cannot control. The corporate big-wigs went to Congress and said - bail us out or else the world will end. Congress bougth that bunch of balogna and bailed them out. Congress also bought the bunch of bologna that homeowners who got bad loans, or loans that would be difficult should be bailed out. Simply because they cannot pay their mortgage and their house has lost so much value they cannot sell it and payoff the mortgage. Those people speculated on the real estate market, lost, and now want to be bailed out.
I am complaining that Obama is a socialist. That he will make things worse with even more wealth redistribution. I don't like him, and I don't like his policies. I am urging people not to vote for him because things will just get worse, not better.
We are not totalitarian - yet. But I think you'd agree it's getting closer. The 'common people' have to be vigilant because the ruling class do not have their interests at heart.
Looking across from Europe, we don't see Obama as Socialist, only as slightly left of centre.
Pardon my ignorance here, but what's wrong with socialism? Over and over on hubpages I read the word used in a context which is totally unfamiliar to me. Here in Europe socialism is just another form of politics, not a dark art!
I know in Europe it is common. But in Europe you also get things for your taxes - transportation, good roads, schools, health care, paid maternity leave and the like. Here we don't get that. Our roads suck, we have no good health care, and our schools stink. What's more, the taxes we pay don't come back to our area. We don't have paid maternity leave, we simply have a variety of rules from state to state. We don't get what you have in return for your taxes.
Socialism here is a "bad" word. America was founded on the concept of freedom and an ability to excell if you try hard enough. When you start leving large taxes, controling industry, and reducing the amount of choices peole have - I don't like that. I want the industries to be unregulated et al.
It is a problem with American politics that our far left - which is where Obama resides - is only center left for Europe. We only have two main parties, and they are both fairly center from where the rest of the world is.
That said - I still don't believe that socialism is the way to go for America. The country is too large for it to work. There are too many people and different types of people for the concept to even work. And we have too much illegal immigration for it to work. You would tax for what you thin kyou would spend, based on the citizens, and then spend a gazillion dollars more because you also have illegals using the system.
The problems are intertwined and they stink - and Obama will not make them any better. He will make them worse with open boarder policies. I like McCain.
Actually Socialism has not always been a bad word, that is not until the 1950's the the McCarthy hearings and the Communism scare. Many upstanding and established Americans belonged to socialistic parties at the turn of the century 19th century. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican president that ran on a ticket that made many overtures to people that belonged to socialistic/populist parties in the early 1900's. At one time the New Deal implemented in the 1930's by Franklin Roosevelt and Social Security were seen as socialistic, but the long term impact of these systems were certaintly not that. In the 1800's people were highly against labor unions and viewed these as socialistic, but today these are needed to protect the rights of workers. Obama is not a hardcore socialist, and as others have stated he is only a little left of center. Also, it would not hurt the US to have a slightly more equalitarian spread of wealth, such as universal health care because the current system does not met the needs of all. Here is an article about the history of socialism in the US: http://www.marxists.org/history/usa/parties/spusa/ By the way, how do you know we could not have a set-up more like Europe over time? I would never say never. Things have changed quite a lot in the last ten years even, such as people stopping to claim cars are the only way to get around Southern California. We are even talking about voting in better transit systems.
Ok. A more equal spread of wealth? You must be kidding. The beauty of this wonderful country is that you work for what you get. There are programs out there to help those who do not have medical care. That they don't provide the same level of care as other programs where people pay more - well too bad. My house is better than some because I paid more for it. Same with medical care. So long as you can get basic care, and then life-saving care, you just have to deal with not getting everything else. If you want everything else, you need to work harder to get more money. I understand it can be hard to afford care. But there are plenty of people who can afford cars, gas and insurance that don't have medical care. So a car is more important than medical care? It is a choice people make. Universal health care is a bad idea. Providing a means for coverage for all isnt' a bad idea, but universla health care is. Want to know how bad an idea it is for the US? Take a look at the VA system.
Labor unions are socialistic and they aren't needed today. Not to the extent that they are present. The New Deal and Social Secutiry are socialist types of programs. I am not debating that, and they were good at the time. But we aren't in those times anymore. This is not the Great Depression. And we need someone who will lead us forwards, encourage development of ideas and things. Someone who will let people reap the rewards of what they have developed. You don't get those things in a socialist society.
Thanks for responding so quickly. The things you say we get for our taxes, are very often the things that have been introduced by successive socialist governments. We too have illegal immigrants, and also asylum seekers, many of them escaping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, we do have free-loaders and shirkers benefitting from our social security and healthcare schemes. I think that's inevitable, just as it is inevitable that many wealthy people try to avoid paying taxes, because they do not want to share their income with the needy and the poor. My Yorkshire born mother-in-law liked to say that money is round to go round, and flat to stack up. In other words it's good to save and accumulate, but it's also good to share, and that's what socialism is about.
Yeah. And I don't think that I want to share my money. This is one of those debates that doesn't have anywhere to go because we both are coming from various political and economic perspectives. I believe, very strongly, that the money I earn is for me. I don't object to a certain amount of taxes, because that is the price I pay for a civilized society. I do object to raising my taxes since I am getting next to nothing for them anyways. So I don't want to entrust more money to a system that cannot manage within its means as it is. I also don't want that same system to continually spend the country into massive amounts of debt, and make programs that do nothing, and support nothing. The government in the US is dysfunctional - in no small part because citizens don't pay attention - and I don't want them to spend more of my money when they don't spend what they have well. The give themselves raises, and pay for their staffs, but cannot give money to education to fill mandates they give out. I just think that giving them more money for more ineffective, useless and badly run programs is a bad idea.
We are a HUGE nation, and governing is better done by the states (although they aren't doing well at the moment either - except in smaller states). I don't want the government doing more, when they cannot do what they do within budget or well.
So I really don't want someone who wants to expand government to be the next President.
Sorry, but there are many people working hard in this country and losing their jobs by the day. Labor unions are needed for hard workers to help protect their health insurance and working conditions. Also, many of these people went to college to have managerial positions in these companies. My sister has worked as a manager at a grocery store for over seven years, and if it was not for the labor union her employees and herself would have lost health care. Also, it is unfair and misinformed to say everyone and anyone can get affordable health care, because that is just not so. I paid for my own health care out of pocket for two years and I had a five thousand dollar deductible, which means I really did not go to the hospital unless I had to. Social security is still in place today, and this system was not phased out, although it does need to be fixed. I am a very hard working person myself and I know many other hard working people that could benefit from universal health care. It is easy to say others do not need those things when you have not lived in another person's experiences.
Uhm - I have lived through those experiences. I have been on my own for almost 25 years. For the first 10, I was in the military. I am telling you - you don't want a national health care system. I didn't earn enough to do much other than to go out to eat sometimes. There are military families on food stamps. We weren't paid well. But we had enough to eat, housing and we almost all had cars and some moeny to go do stuff. Without a union.
Today you can choose where to work. Unions aren't needed. People can leave jobs, get new jobs, and everything. It might be harder in this economy than others. But they can. I did. After the military, I lived for 4 years without a union, in jobs where I made enough to live, but not enough to have great health care. I, like you, had a huge deductible. But it was still care. If I had needed something, then I could've gotten it. I have lived through some of the stuff you are saying I haven't.
But here's the thing - health care needs to cover people. I agree that everyone should have it. We vary on how we think it should be provided. if there was a national system, you would be complaining about wait time, medications that aren't covered, elective procedures that aren't covered, and wait times. You cannot get something for nothing. A program in place to provide insurance to those who cannot afford it is a good idea - if it comes with a mandate that everyone have health care. Otherwise, you run into the same problems we have now. Nothing is going to be cured by eliminating private coverage and moving towards a national health care system. Simply put, a way for coverage in the current system, needs to be found for everyone. How that is done, well I don't know. And it has to be a way that people have to pay something.
Social secutiry is a good idea. I pay into it. I want it when I am older. Otherwise the government is stealing my money. I thin kwe should provide for our elderly. If you look at the first part of the hub, I say I have no problem with a system that provides for those who cannot provide for themselves, or who have put their time and money into the system and so they are reaping their rewards. This is true for people who paid into social security. If you didn't pay in, I don't think you should be getting anything out of it. I also don't think that it should cover disability for those who can work - but just don't want to work in a field where their disability can be accomodated. Every day you hear stories of cops who retired on disability (state and SSI) and then go to work as a security guard. This is wrong.
Sen. Obama won't do anything to help you. His plan relies on raising taxes to create a system from scratch. It won't help you. It won't be in place or work in time. Sen. McCain wants to find a way to work within the current system, so it can help you NOW.
I have never had a union job myself, but I know people with kids that have good solid jobs that cannot just up and quit their jobs. It is not that easy. For the record I would not be complaining about universal health care, as I am one of those people who rarely goes to the doctor. I believe the current system loves to push medications and I am more into healthy eating and holistic living. I do not even have health care because neither of my jobs provide it, and buying my own insurance is a waste of my money. So when I am speaking of these things I am speaking of those who do need it, people with family and children.
If you work at a supermarket you did need unions as workers at non-unionized stores are barely paid minimum wage. At unionized stores they do not make employees work over time and people have benefits .
Also, one thing I would like to point out is you are a former veteran, which means you get VA status and sometimes higher ranking when applying for jobs than other people. I would say the military might be a good choice for those who really need a job because of such benefits, but with the way the war is going in Iraq right now I would not recommend that for anyone. Quiting a job and getting a new one is not easy for someone who has kids, or for someone who wants stablity.
I might be able to quit jobs and start new ones myself, but after time I like the stability of working for one place and one company. Also, I never said I thought Obama was going to cure all my woes, wow interesting you thought so. I think Obama is the more informed candidate willing to push America in a better direction though.
You're right. This is a debate that has run out of road in a sense. I think there's a good chance that Obama will be your president next week, and you will have the opportunity to discover first hand whether or not the things you say are true. I hope and trust that your opinion of him may mellow if he proves to be a good and effective president. You are of course entitled to your own thoughts on this, so I shall bow out of this debate now.
First, over the decades the Right and along with them, the Republicans, have move so far to the right that Obama, who is only a little left of center, seems to be far left. There is a true center. Most Americans are at the center with views that fall to either side of the line, and just because a group has a louder voice, does not mean that they represnt the majority.
Second, What is so wrong about redistribution of wealth. Since 2% of the population has over 50% of the wealth, it needs to be reditributed a little bit. And if socialism, means that the government becomes more responsive to the American people, that might not be such a bad thing. The govenment is there to protect and make life easier for its citizens, all of its citizens, not just the rich ones.
Why does it need to be redistributed? So far, no one has given me any good reasons for WHY it should be redistributed. Because 2% of the people hold 50% of the wealth isn't a reason - it is a statistic. If the reason is "it's unfair," I think you need to rethink what fair is. For sure, there are some rich people who inhereted their money. But someone, somewhere, worked for it and earned it and it should be theirs to do with as they please - without wealth redistribution policies.
Socialism won't be any more responsive than our current system. Nothing will be more responsive. In fact, the government was structured to be unresponsive. It's why laws have to pass both houses and be signed by the President. It is why only Congress can raise/lower taxes. There are any number of system inefficenies that drive the unresponsiveness - including that fact that voters aren't informed voters (for the most part) and rely on stump speechs, tv and commercials to form their voting opinion rather than educating themselves about the issues.
It does make life easier for all its citizens. There are income redistribution programs out there. In fact, for those of you lamenting about job loss - why not give something back to the country you live in and serve in the military? Peace Corps? Teacher training?
The government does serve the poor and the rich. It is just the rich get the attention and the poor get the sympathies of the press - so people make assumptions. Which is fine, but don't tell me that the government doesn't protect everyone and provide something for the poor citizens.
And why should life be easier? You work hard, and you can enjoy the rewards. That is what the whole American Dream is about. It is possible for everyone. It is simply that somewhere along the way, people make other choices - whether it is to have sex at a young age (from which they become parents), stay at home, not go to college, not finish high school, commit a crime, decide not to work, or whatever. Those are choices that you make and then your future is curtailed or shaped by those choices. So don't tell me the country doesn't provide. It provides basic education for all - and a TON of help for those who want further education. If you don't take advantage of it to maximize your earning potential, then you made a choice. The government does enough.
They want it distributed because they don't want to work. They want others to work for them. Laziness.
I think one of the reasons for Obama's free fall in the polls is that people are realizing how his economic policies may effect them. The owner of the company I work for said that if Obama is elected the first thing he would have to do when Obama raised taxes is lay of workers. I suspect my boss is not the only one saying this and workers are realizing they could lose their jobs because of Baracks intention to take money from these companies and give it to people who don't work. . The owner of the Dolphins said publicly he would sell the team before Barack had time to impliment his economic policies.
The Miami Dolphins??
Yes, The Miami Dolphins.
Thanks!
Wow, it would be nice if everyone who watched NFL could see that. Thanks for sharing.
It was reported in the Sacramento Bee about that comment as well. I am totally happy that someone is taking notice of what might happen. People seem to think that they are entitled to redistribution of income - I am glad to see that someone doesnt think that way.
Thanks for helping make this a great hub and keep the talk coming!
You're welcome.
What we are entitled is to keep the money we earn by working. I don't expect you to send me part of your check on Friday when you get paid while I sit home doing nothing. We are turning into a lazy nation, feeling that, for some unknown reason, we are owed everything we want. Which is not the case. I don't think people realize that once this occurs, that they will have total control of everything. Obama will be the boss. He'll tell us how much money we can have and what to do with it and when. It is taking away our freedoms men fought and died to give us. Why can't people see this????
>> I don't expect you to send me part of your check on Friday when you get paid while I sit home doing nothing.
No ,actually, that sounds an awful lot like my first wife.
Oh me!
2008 will be the year religious extremists will not be sufficient in number to win, despite their best attempts to spread absurd accusations and fabrications. I would remind them that lying is a sin, but they've corrupted Jesus's message so badly I don't think lying ranks up there as their worst sins.
nwunderlich: you asked WHY income should be redistributed.
For those who consider Jesus a prophet, it might be worthwhile to pay attention to what he said (since he never said anything about homosexuals, much less gay marriage):
To the rich he said, "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth," and "go, sell what you have, and give to the poor." When the rich turned away from him because they couldn't follow his command he observed, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
ok - he did say stuff about marriage. He said Men cling to your wives, and wives cling to your husbands. he also refered to man and wife as "he" and "she." Note the gender differentiations.
Like I said - I don't object to my taxes going to those who truely cannot help themselves. Which is fine. And that is what jesus would do. What he would not do is insist on wealth redistribution to make things fair. You took a bunch of passages from the Bible out of context. namely, the first one he was saying that don't let your desire for objects take over your spirituality. And the second was to a guy who asked what he had to do to become a disciple of Jesus. Jesus doesn't ask us to give up all that we have, or to not work hard to gain more. He simply asks us to not become so attached to things that we forego our spirituality for them. And I don't think that we are. it is fair, and just, to ask those who receive help from others to become self-sufficient. It is unjust to continue to give handouts to people. Socialism, and welath redistribution, gives handouts to people without a condition of them becoming self-sufficient.
And livelonger - I want to let you know that there are very few religious extremists in the US. Most religious people tend to be moderates - but the media plays to the notion that the religious right are extremeists by showing only a few of the religious right. Most people who are on the right, and religious, are not extremists. Do you know who the Christian extremists are? they are the KKK. Not the people who are open to dialogue and debate here.
Glad to see that I am not the only one with some common sense about the distinct dualities of your statments. Yes we already live in a socialistic goverment run country,. What do you cal Social security, and Wellfare? Our country has been fooling it's self in believing that our goverment runs things. That is such a big joke it has stoped being funny. Corporations rule this country and that is why our own goverment has caved into them. There has been and will continue to be wide spread corruption in politics for as long as we have politics rulled by parties like we have. If you really want to make things better maybe we need to put the power back into the goverment by no longer having any elected officials.. I volunteer to be the new king of America.. Wish Washington had things might be much better right now.
Suffice it to say you chose to interpret the Bible as you saw fit, extremely specifically read in one context (so it can't be generalized in a way that is exceedingly obvious), and extremely generalized in another. Both widely different interpretations conveniently support your views against equality for gay people, and for rewarding the rich.
The KKK are certainly extremists. So are the hyperreligious, and there are quite a few here on HubPages. For them, all policy boils down to their selective interpretation of the Bible, and most of the policy and rhetoric is negatively-focused. And, conveniently, neither are interested in voting for the black candidate, and both have a history of treating black people like second-class citizens.
livelonger you have many good points, but as I experienced earlier it is impossible to make any points on certain hubs without being completely discredited. The group opposed to Obama swears up and down he is a socialist, but when the facts are examined we see Obama is really quite moderate.
I am voting for Obama. After what the corporations have done to us maybe we need some socialism. After all, arent the librabries socialized, the police force, the fire department, the army, navy, marines, and the rest of the military and your federal and state and local governments? Yes, they are. We just don't admit it here in the U.S. that they are.
From what I've read Obama ran on the Socialist Ticket in Chicago in his first race.
So whats the debate here?..of course he's a Socialist. Listen to his Tax plan redistribution, share the wealth..wake up...that $250K and under Tax break has been reduced to $150K and under...it will be $25K and under before you know it. All these new plans of his, who do you think is gonna pay for it? We ALL are regardless of income. Peter/plcombs
Funny to think that Ronald Reagan was also a Socilaist, isn't it? The darling of the Republican party created the earned income tax credit which allows someone who has little or no income to get free money from the government. That is redistribution of wealth, is it not?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Cre
Maybe we are all Socilaists at heart, but some are more so than others. And never forget that reagan was a Democrat once as well, but claimed that the party left him. I think his father-in-law told him to drop the Democrats because he (Nancy's dad) believed they were all Communists.
I bet there are many Republicans who are saying the same thing about the current Republican party these days. Too far to the Right.
I may be one of them! I became an Independent years ago because of the turn of the Republican party from fiscal concerns to social and cultural matters.
I could easily have voted for a Republican for president excapt that I can't vote for McCain, for reasons I've stated in my own hubs.
Great hub!
Cheers!
Chef Jeff
"Obama Is a Socialist"
That's a pretty stiff absolute statement. Considering I've studied socialism and what Obama is promoting isn't socialism, then I'm confused by this hub.
This is coming froma guy not voting for Obama too. He's worshiped and adored beyond my comfort, but let's be honest: there's far more to socialism than welath redistribution. After all, as Chef Jeff said, Reagan himself had socialistic tendencies. Bush, even more so, has proven with this bailout to be equally "socialist" with the peoples' money.
It's funny to watch the far-right religious folks panic about Obama. I am technically still Republican, but as I watch the fiscal side of my party move farther away from me in favor of the super-mega rich and the global corporations who are really only American in name anymore, and as I've watched my party become the party of self-righteousness, judgmentalism and hate... I feel like like I'm not the one moving out of the party, but the party is moving out of me.
When I see comments like, "I also feel that a person who is saved cannot vote for Obama. Any person who loves God cannot vote for him. It's that plain," I realize that it is my duty as an American to vote opposite a mindset like that. I mean, if you're afraid Obama is moving us toward the dreaded "socialism" word... this other mindset is sprinting towards the "fascism" word with even greater speed.
Anything else I have to say was already said perfectly by Paraglider and his reasonable, calm, thoughtful examination of the situation from an intellectual perspective rather than a palpitating heart gripping fearfully at party rhetoric and religious texts.
Barack Obama has spent more in campaign corporate dollars than any prior Presidential candidate. Hardly an indicator of socialism.
Advocating lower taxes for the less wealthy, and higher taxes for the wealthy, is also not socialism. It's good economics and good math. It's called progressive taxation, and it is how our tax structure was originally designed. (At least, that was the stated intent.)
Both Obama and McCain voted to bail out financial institutions to the tune of $750 billion (plus some $100 billion in miscellaneous pork). If such redistribution of public wealth is a sign of socialism, then both the Dems and the Repubs are running socialist candidates this year.
As it stands, however, I don't see Americans racing toward socialism; it goes too much against our national culture. But I do see, perhaps, a move toward leveling the playing field so that businesses can compete on a closer-to-fair basis, and toward serving, rather than exploiting, the consumer. (Let's just see how far it does move.)
I see more Americans going towards socialism than not. More Americans want something for nothing. I know that wealth redistribution isn't the only thing that defines socialism - but it is a big part of it.
Why should the playing feild be leveled? I still haven't heard a good argument for that. Why should it be?
I agree that both candidates have some socialist tendencies - and Obama has more. People dislike him for more than his socialist tendencies - he also believes in black liberation theology, believes that more money needs to go to Africa (where it has done so much good - NGO's do more good there than our money), and other things that go far against my belief system. The money spent abroad should be spent at home - fixing things et al.
I really haven't seen more Americans wanting something for nothing -- it looks like pretty much the same proportion to me. However, I am seeing hard-working people losing left and right.
Health care is not just about shopping for the right plan. Sometimes it's about choosing whether to go to the doctor, or eat. And in some locations, there is little/no choice at any price. While it can be argued that everyone should just pick up and move if there are few choices in health care (or jobs, or schools, or whatever) in their current locale -- and it can be argued that all claims of family obligations and other concerns are weak excuses for poor choices -- what would happen if everyone did just that -- picked up and flooded the few areas that have everything?
As for the playing field, an example: A corporation comes into a community and builds a superstore. All the local businesses close down. Then, as it pleases them, the corporation closes the superstore. Voila! No services, no jobs. Oh, and most of the jobs at corporate headquarters have gone overseas. Small businesses lose, consumers lose.
Here's another: Profitable businesses lay off thousands of employees because their profits are smaller than they'd like. Not nonexistent, not painful, just smaller.
I do agree that we need to focus more on our own crumbling infrastructure. But we also owe aid to other countries as well. In some cases, we're largely responsible for their plight. Aside from that, humanitarian aid is the best advertisement for the American lifestyle and values.
And we're not really spending a whole lot on humanitarian aid. We're spending much more on corporate bailouts and military adventures. If we cut those dollars way down. we'll find a lot more for taking care of people ... including us.
This hub has to be a Halloween hoax. If Obama is a socialist, then McCain is a fascist. Obama is calling for tax cuts, not tax increases. The huge tax cuts that McCain wants are not cuts for the American people, they are giveaways to the super rich and corporations like ExxonMobil that already milk Americans for billions of dollars every quarter. Obama does not advocate "wealth distribution" as you and McCain state. His offhanded "share the wealth" comment was a colloquialism for tax cuts for the middle class. McCain wants socialism for the wealthy. If you have no problem with tax-funded welfare programs, then you are a socialist.
His comment wasn't off-hand. He has made the same comment in interviews, books and other places. He clearly is a socialist.
And Obama cannot promise tax cuts. There is no way to incresae spending and have more tax cuts - unless you continue to have deficit spending. Which is irresponsible and a horrible way to conduct the affairs of our government.
I am not a socialist - I believe that some socialist programs are good - for those who desperately need them. But those who are on them should also be taking the first job they come across - picking fruit, Mc Donald's - whatever. And they don't. And all Obama wants to do is exapnd programs for those people.
You cannot cut taxes and have more spending it doesn't work.
To nwunderlich I guess you must then think it is ok for a ceo to make millions and the average worker in the same company making 8$ an hour, since everybody should just go get what ever job is avail. and since we should not be spreading the wealth around. I guess then you also don't agree to us giving out foreign aid or for the us to borrow money from other nations cause why should they spread their wealth then, I wonder how you would get around in your car then because other nations do not have to sell us oil they should just keep that for them selves and not spread their wealth. You say you do not get anything back from paying taxes yet you wont vote for Obama who is trying to give you things like healthcare back for you paying your taxes ? You can argue all you want that you know what socialism is but before you have actually tried to live in a country where there is socialism you dont know. Obama is not a socialist he is a democrat that is finally standing up to all the God/Gun loving republicans who is moving this country into something that is looking more like communism instead of capitalism. To allshookup how dare you even take a stand on who you think God has saved or not, or who is entitled to love God. Denmark where i am from is a welfare state we pay 40-50 % in taxes, no one dies on the street, hospitals and all education is free, you have 6 weeks of paid vacation, the state even gives you money while you study, the government even pays your sick days or your kids sick days. You will never go hungry or be without a home cause if you cant pay for it the government will. All that Guess what is paid for by spreading the wealth and i guess if you want to call it socialism you can, because that would be terrible if we got those same living standards in the US. The richest country in the world.
Ironically, Christians and Mormons are the most likely to fight socialist values while those are clearly most in line with Christ's teachings.
Christian values are in line with two things: (1) caring for those who cannot care for themselves, and helping them get to the point where they can care for themselves and (2) working hard to be self-sufficient.
I understand you get all that in Denmark. We have NONE of that in the US, nor would I want the US government to try. The country is huge. Much to large for the federal government to run a lot of that stuff. And it is much too expensive. We cannot afford all the spending we are doing now, much less more. We also have this big problem with free-loaders - those who think that they should get a free lunch. People who don't believe me should just look at what people want with the mortgage crisis. No one says, "yeah, I made a bad decision and bought more house tha nI could afford." or " I was speculating that the value of the house would rise before my mortgage adjusted so I would be able to sell it and make some money." Nope. Instead, "Bail me out, I want to keep my house but i cannot afford it." This type of "free lunch" mentality exists throughout the Us and would doom programs like you have in Denmark. The people using/abusing the programs would be so large, and the people paying in not enough, that the program would sink. Plus, there is a totally different mentality here. The mentality is that the states govern, and the federal government does the bare minimum. It doesn't always work that way, but that's what our limited government is about.
Obama violates those views and believes them too be defunct. Too bad they are in the Constitution.
{{Christian values are in line with two things: (1) caring for those who cannot care for themselves, and helping them get to the point where they can care for themselves and (2) working hard to be self-sufficient.}}
These are not Christian values. They are societal values espoused by Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Rationalists, Humanists, ... need I go on? It is quite ridiculous to suggest that only American Conservative Republicans have proper 'Christian' values.
Regarding housing -- a crisis existed long before the real estate bubble.
Renters were affected as well. In the San Francisco Bay Area, rents rose to a point where tenants were being priced out of the homes they had lived in for years.
Buying actually became more affordable than rent, because mortgage interest is tax-deductible whereas rent is not. But if the mortgage loan was adjustable, over time, payment amounts rose to the point where they, too, were unaffordable. With, still, no price relief in rental housing.
At the same time, many areas with reasonable housing costs were also low in jobs, even of the McJob variety. Relocation is not always an option. (And yes, I've known many who work 3 jobs in order to make ends meet. First, no one should have to work up to 120 hours just to afford basics. Second, if they must, then those jobs need to exist.)
For most, homeowners' "greed" was based on simply wanting a roof over their heads.
(nwunderlich ... I see you're in Sacramento -- about an hour away from me. Same situation there, if to a slightly lesser degree. If you weren't there in the '80s-'90s, you may not have seen this.)
Shelter is a basic need. When our neighbors lack basic needs, it pulls down the standard of living for all of us.
Nwunderlich I live in America now 10 years im very well aware of how things work here, this is the typical american defense, Fear. How can you knock something before you have tried it. Denmark is not the only country who has these programs, more or less any country that is in the Eu does. That is how a country gets accepted to be in the EU. Obv. the system we have in America does not work so why would you not want to change , we have as many people abusing the system in Europe as here, Infact its amazing to me how little people use the system here compared to how tough it is to get by. Americans all say they want limited government but the truth is no matter what Americans think the government here is more incorporated in your life than you think, any day you dont pay your taxes the government can come in and not only levy your account but take your home from you so how is that limited government, it does not work, the days where you could sit on your porch with a shot gun and get the IRS of your property is over. This is not the same America, you now have to depend on other countries.
My husband believes me bleed red , white and blue, he is from oklahoma, he is/was the biggest conservative you could find. He votes for Obama today cause he wants something for the taxes he has paid his whole life to this country and because as someone else commented he feels like the republican party left him to become these God/Gun loving elite group of people. and not to mention because he believes in the rights for me as a human being to choose what I and my daughters one day want to put our body's through.
America needs to grow up and face its demographic and global change and adapt accordingly, to even have props that are for or against abortion or Gay marriage is setting us back again 50 years. These things are real , gay people are real, woman who can decide to have a child or not is real and no law or person should have the right to take that from anyone, who is anyone to decide who you can and cannot love. Why are we even in Iraq fighting if we don't believe in those freedoms.
You cannot judge what Christian values are that is up to the individual who believes in Christ , If Christian values are anything it is the love for all people no matter what God they choose to believe in.
Model12, Thank you for taking the time to clarify especially the last paragraph. They say never to discuss politics or religion and honestly I can see why. When I went to vote today, I prayed and God guided me, so I do not have any issues and I am one of those they dislike unfortunately, I am a swing voter. We need change in our economy and we need to take it back. :)
All shook up, your early christians were communists in the strictest and most correct sense of the word. Socialist Obama is not. In Europe we view him as pragmatic, centerist, but hardly a socialist. By the way we live in socialist democracies., Do you think that your brand of capitalist democracy is all that great? We don't. And it isn't. Go hug your guns and prepare for your internal revolutions as your southern states once more rebel and secede. And remember you brought it all on yourselves by whipping up a storm over nothing. Your side lost. Get over it and play nice or get out of the playground.
Model12, you have it right, sister!
allshookup 3 years ago
There's no way that anyone with a lick of sense can disagree with the fact that he is a solcialist and wants to turn our beloved nation into a socialist nation. How anyone can love our country so little as to vote for this man is beyond me. If he does win this election, we are in for a long hard road. I also feel that a person who is saved cannot vote for Obama. Any person who loves God cannot vote for him. It's that plain. Good hub. Keep up the great work!! May God have mercy on our country, but if Obama is elected, we do not deserve mercy.