Questions for Liberals.

Biden was recently interviewed on two local news stations, and they asked, how exactly is Obama’s economic plan not socialism? I pose that same question to you, how is his plan not socialism? Those who have worked hard, and made a lot of money are taxed very high percentages. That money, is then in turn, handed down to those who make less money. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” –Karl Marx

Tell me, where in the constitution does it provide for “economic justice?” Where in the constitution does it provide for “fairness,” or the right to demand that others not be more successful than you? I’ll save you the research, it doesn’t. So tell me, how is Obama to defend the constitution, if he wants to change it? “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I’ll tell you what the constitution does provide for, in Amendment 14: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Yet Obama has repeatedly supported abortion. What happened to the right of life to unborn children?

I would love to know your opionions.

9 comments:

Kanzeon said...

You haven't had many takers. I'll take a shot.

First, Obama hasn't said anything like what Marx said - and more important, he hasn't proposed any radical redistribution policies. Instead, he proposes edging up marginal rates a tad, to about what they were in the Clinton years, but far far below what they were before Reagan.

I didn't notice that capitalism vanished during the Clinton years, or that capitalism was even wounded before the Reagan years.

George Bush has spread the wealth around through the tax code. Obama's going to spread it back to a level we all have experience with.

Socialism isn't any mechanism of wealth redistribution. It is nationalizing of industries, rather like the Bush administration has done for banking.

There's your answer to number 1.

As to the constitution, progressive taxation is constitutional. Social programs such as welfare, which "spread the wealth around" are constitutional, as were most of the programs of the New Deal. So, there isn't anything unconstitutional about programs that help the most vulnerable in society with tax dollars (just as there are no prohibitions to spreading wealth upward through corporate subsidies).

The constitution doesn't mandate fairness, but it does mandate equal protection. This is a long discussion that problem isn't relevant. However, the mere fact that the constitution doesn't mandate something - sewer lines or whatever - doesn't mean that the constitution prevents that good or service being provided.

Glad to be of assistance. Go vote on the 4th.

Kanzeon said...

Oh, and one other thing:

We have just witnessed massive thievery on Wall Street. Huge bonuses are still being handed out by investment banks, despite the fact that they are essentially getting taxpayer money. Many, many wealthy people work hard for their money: these guys didn't, and many others didn't. I could give you a list of companies that were brought down by very wealthy scam artists, but you problem know the names as well as I.

Chappy said...

Unfortunately Kanzeon you're wrong.

"First, Obama hasn't said anything like what Marx said - and more important, he hasn't proposed any radical redistribution policies."

Socialism refers economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

By openly taking from the wealthy to give to everyone else, Obama is openly promoting socialism. Obama has repeatedly said that by taxing the rich it is "fair" and "neighborly to give to those that don't have." While it is "neighborly" to give to the poor (almost all religions teach that), but it crosses the line when the state begins to mandate that the rich must give to the poor (check the definition of socialism again, above).

Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

Now, I would argue that the U.S. is set up as a egalitarianism society in that we want all people to be treated as equals politically, economically, socially, and in civil rights. HOWEVER, (and this is the main difference between liberals and conservatives) conservatives want the means to be equal, while liberals want to ends to be equal. Let me illustrate.

In the U.S. a man can go find a job and put in 40 hours of work and make $400. If he wants, he can work extra and make more. The system is set up so that if a person is willing to work hard and put in the time he may profit according to his labor. In the old Soviet government a person was required to put in 40 hours a week and was given what the government thought he needed. If the man wanted to put in extra time for some extra money it would do him no good because he would always receive according to what the government thought he needed. Some people worked hard, most did not because there was no incentive to work hard.

In the U.S. the means to work is equal, making the ends different (i.e. work more, get more). In the Soviet government, the work load is different (means), but the ends were always equal or "fair".

Conservatives want a market system set up where you can participate and, according to your efforts, make a living. Conservatives understand that if you put in more time/preparation/education you WILL be given more opprotunites and likely be able to make more money. Not every person in a business makes the same amount because every position is different and subject to supply and demand. There are plenty of people qualified to flip burgers at Burger King (i.e. no education, no prior work experience, etc.); however, there are not a lot of people qualified to practice medicine/law (i.e. high school degree, undergraduate degree, top of class, extracirrcular activities, high school on admission exam, graduate from law/medical school, license to practice). There are naturally more burger flippers available than the doctors/lawyers, and in a capitalist economy if there are fewer available the price goes up.

Liberals look at the markets in a different light. Liberals want an economy where the ends are equal, but not the means. Liberals want an economy where some people work hard, some people work less, and some people don't work, BUT they all get paid the same. What's the reasoning for this? Economic justice.

Back in 2001 Obama made an argument FOR economic justice through redistribution of wealth. After he applauded the Supreme Court for investing formal rights to all (i.e. vote, sit at lunch counter and eat, etc.). Obama then lamented that the court did not push it one step further and guarantee economic equality through redistribution of wealth. He felt/feels that "by spreading the wealth around, it benefits everyone."

That's socialism and that's what we're gonna get if Obama is elected. I don't know why people don't just say Obama agrees with socialism. When he comes out and makes these blatantly socialistic comments, and smart/bright people say he did not, it just offends me. At least be intellectually honest with yourself and others. If you support him is one thing, but don't say he's not something that he himself claims to be.

Economic equality = socialism

Anonymous said...

good point chappy

don't put a dog in my face and tell me it's a cat not a dog

don't put these Obama statements and tax plans in my face and tell me it's not socialism

khanssen said...

Unfortunately, Chappy, by your definition, the United States has been a socialist republic for decades. Different income-based tax brackets were first introduced in, I believe, the early 1900s.

khanssen said...

AND different tax brackets were introduced during the presidency of Howard Taft...a Republican.

Damn socialist.

DaddyMoose said...

khanssen, while we have had different tax brackets for a while, Obama doesn't stop with taxes. Should we begin to explain to you how Obama's healthcare plan is socialism to a T?

The U.S. has had shadows of socialism due to our ridiculous "entitlement" programs, which were started during the great depresssion and should have been cut after they were no longer need, such as social security and meciare, which are currently underfunded by $41 trillion. Obama wants to expand these "entitlement" programs rather than scrapping them.

If you add more entitlement programs, which cost lots of money, to the programs that are already insanely underfunded, this country will be literally bankrupt within no more than 30 years. Don't believe me? Look up what David Walker is and has been preaching about the financial stability of the country. If elected, Obama will slap all his frivlous, social programs onto our entitlement programs, and he will have put our country on a path for immenent destruction from within. We will collapse due to our own careless, frivilous and socialist spending.

Kanzeon said...

Chappy,

It's rather hopeless to have a discussion with someone who doesn't real with reality, as is the case with modern "conservatives."

You little riff on egalitarianism, means and ends, etc. sounds fine echoing in your empty skull, but it has no basis in reality. Look at what Obama proposes: taxation at rates we have all seen in our lifetimes. Capitalism survived, even thrived under those rates. Hence, regardless of whether Obama adopted some language you find offensive in offhand comments to some plumber, the reality is that his policies are not socialist.

If you think that offhand comments about fairness are more important in evaluating a candidate than his actual policies, then you're hopeless.

I'm sure you believe your sorry little tale about work being rewarded and the ant and the grasshopper, but look at the facts. Social mobility is less in the United States than in any developed country but Britian. In other words, in all the socialist countries of Europe, there is more opportunity. Look it up. The American dream is on life support, largely because the middle class is eroding.

But you opinion on social mobility doesn't really matter anyway, because again it has nothing to do with reality. Were there fewer billionaires created in the Clinton years than the Bush years? I don't think so. Startup businesses will be successful under Obama, just as they were under Clinton, Reagan, under Carter, and under every other postwar president. The only real variable was how well the economy did, but that isn't a reflection of philosophies, but of practical policies.

You are perfectly entitled to consider lower tax rates beneficial on philosophical or practical grounds. You can have whatever views you want about market deregulation. These are certainly legitimate areas of disagreement among intelligent, informed people.

But, claiming that Obama is a socialist when in fact he proposes no policy that is socialist is idiocy. You're just ranting and making a fool of yourself. The same is true, by the way, of the people on the left who think that Bush is a fascist or that McCain has wet dreams about war with Iran.

Anyway, I answered the questions. They are stupid questions, just like Biden said. But you don't have to be stupid to vote Republican. Really, you don't, despite all appearances.

khanssen said...

DaddyMoose -

I am not questioning your concerns with some of the programs on Obama's agenda, I'm condemning the alarmist labeling tactics that are being employed.

An entitlement program means that if you meet certain criteria, you qualify for the program. By those criteria, entitlement programs have been in place in the federal government for decades - some benefiting low-income families, some benefiting mega-million dollar oil corporations. Both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored programs that could be labeles as "entitlement programs" for their special interest groups - it's nothing new. I don't like a lot of them, either.

I'm fairly moderate and I'm not too sure I like the idea of ANY subsidized government health care initiatives - McCain's OR Obama's.

What I find problematic is that conservatives, instead of saying, "Here's what's wrong with Obama's health care plan," are instead trying to demonize it by attaching ridiculously unsupportable adjectives to it to scare ignorant people.

As a moderate, I'm not really crazy about the idea of a Democratic-controlled Congress AND a Democratic president, and I would have the same feelings if the reverse were true.

I probably even share the sentiments of the people running this blog, which are probably to build a larger conservative base. I think it brings balance to a government.

But let me tell you, the conservative methods are pissing the crap out of me. I'm NOT stupid, I have internet access and can check your "facts," and anything extreme coming out of either party is getting vetted by me.

The conservative party is losing intelligent people and is gaining fools. Given the choice between the two parties right now, I can't pick one that treats me like an idiot.

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!