In an interview Saturday with Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, a Florida news anchor attacked Senator Barack Obama for being “socialist”:
“What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a socialist country much like Sweden?”
I don’t know what Sweden she’s talking about. Surely not our peaceful and prosperous neighbour, which incidentally has been run by a conservative government since 2006?
I respectfully ask from you Jari, how Obama’s policies could never, or should never, be miscontrued as being socialist in it’s ideology or intent? Just how could his “redistribution of wealth statement be understood in a capitalistic…”sort of way”?
I am all ears on this one….believe me.
Sure — if progressive taxation is socialist, he’s a socialist, and good for him.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/03/081103taco_talk_hertzberg?yrail
“we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”
Collective ownership of the resources? Is that socialist too Kenneth?
So taxing the 15 percent of American society that pays between 67-70% of the taxes even more, while many that fall between the remaining 22-30% don’t pay any tax at all, will receive extra dividends from Obama’s tax intiatives, can hardly be called…fair taxing.
As for Egan’s snippet, a state owning resources, that allows corporations to extricate them and then levy a tax on them, is not an example of socialism. Far from it. Levying taxes on the individual in order for the government to place the funds in someone elses pocket, …is socialism, at least on aspect of it. Your example’s sole puprose is to blur the lines between by conflating two different issues.
Palin is not sharing other peoples wealth but that which is taken from natural resources…and from corporations …which can’t be described as socialism. The Alaskan state leases the mineral rights, and the taxpayers get a share. Barack Obama’s spreading of the wealth (true socialism) does not produce any wealth on its own, it’s just taking it from one pocket and delivering to another who has not earned it.
Palin allows for drilling that will produce wealth, while Obama’s kind of drilling (into other peoples pockets) only moves the wealth from one area to the next. Socialism.
Aritotle said: “If the majority rules and distributes the wealth of the minority among itself, the city will be destroyed. If the minority of the wealthy rule, they will rob the multitude.”
Of course there is a fine line to be drawn, for democracy to flourish there is a good reason to see that the oligarks do not rule. But going way over board like Obama proposes, as well as what can be found here, is sociliam, the most devesating ideology known to mankind in the last 150 years.
So to answer Egan’s question, no, Palin is not talking about socialism. But if you think Sarah’s socialism is bad, wait until you’ve tasted Barry’s”.
[...] have traveled to several well known Socialist countries, including Sweden and Finland and reportedly enjoyed myself in those havens of godlessness and [...]
And let’s not forget social security, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and (I’m sure) many others.
I mean, how many social parasites are we going to be asked to support? If these elderly people are too lazy too work and too stupid to make sure they had enough money to pay for their medical bills why should it be the government’s responsibility to make sure they live?
I say we practice real fiscal responsibility and use the elderly and the poor as target practice for the military. That way we save on buying targets and get rid of these welfare kings and queens.
Country first!
So iago68 can only think to espouse genocide of the elderly if the nanny state is threatened. Talk about a “knee jerk reaction”. Truth be told, socialists just can’t think of life without dear government managing it for them.
Something tells me that they are the least likely to survive in the wilderness.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Kenneth, but haven’t you been living in a “nanny state” for quite some time, of your own choice I assume?
And we are to deduce exactly what with that statement? If that means all Socialists and Marxists are in severe violation of their principles by living in the US…then I’m guilty as charged.
I am merely curious as to why one would voluntarily choose to live in a system one so clearly dislikes.
Pretty much for the same reason your fellow socialists in the USA haven’t left for ‘redder pastures’ either. Perhaps if the system were accompanied by political or religious persecutions I might jump ship.
Not that it’s any of your business, but, unsurprisingly, you’ve got my political colour all wrong.
Obviously I was engaging in a bit of Reductio ad absurdum. I do wonder, however, how many people who recoil at any thought of getting a bit of ‘Socialism’ in their soup have no problems cashing those social security checks or refusing other forms of government wealth spreading.
At least here in the U.S., the whole argument about one of the candidates being a socialist is a bunch of political nonsense. It’s just as ridiculous as calling McCain a fascist.
Jari Lindholm: “Since Finland emerged from a record-breaking recession in the early 90s, successive governments have all but obliterated what was once a welfare state, and the results are here for all to see. We have watched helplessly as the essential functions of our society have been privatised and outsourced.”
Sounds like the kvetching of a socialist to me, in the wake of the Kauhajoki massacre tragedy.
iago68,
I believe Obama’s socialism will make today’s watered down version of market capitalism a shell of its former shell.