America, the Elections, and "Socialism"

[The Gardener]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 015417.php

By: Hilzoy


Socialism Is Everywhere

In a stunning reversal, John McCain today endorsed the redistribution of wealth:


"We have a plan of action to get America's economy going again, Maria, and it has to do with a wide range of prescriptions. But one of them is to keep people in their homes. Look, it was the housing crisis that started this, OK? Fannie and Freddie, this -- was the catalyst that blew this whole thing up. And frankly, the administration is not doing what I think they should do, and that's go in and buy out these bad mortgages, give people mortgages they can afford, stabilize home values and start them back up again. They did that during the depression, it was called the Home Owners' Loan Corporation.""

Did you catch that? John McCain wants to take your money and "spread" it to various mortgage lenders. Apparently, he thinks that he knows better than you do how your money should be spent.

On reflection, this shouldn't come as such a surprise. McCain has endorsed a variety of other socialistic, redistributive measures. His website notes that "John McCain believes we must enlarge the size of our armed forces to meet new challenges to our security." Needless to say, this amounts to redistributing taxpayer dollars -- your dollars -- to the men and women who would join McCain's enlarged military. Likewise, McCain proposes spreading some of your hard-earned wealth to defense contractors: "John McCain strongly supports the development and deployment of theater and national missile defenses", and he "has fought to modernize our forces, to ensure that America maintains and expands its technological edge against any potential adversary". In yet another capitulation to socialism, "he is committed to ensuring that veterans' health care programs receive the funding necessary to provide the quality health care our veterans need and deserve" -- in other words, to taking the money you have earned and giving it to veterans who get sick. Talk about the nanny state!

The horrors continue: "He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car". Apparently, John McCain doesn't believe that you and I are competent to decide for ourselves whether to give money to people who buy hybrid cars. No: the government will decide for us, and let us foot the bill. Likewise, "John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies." Why can't I decide for myself whether or not I want to fund clean coal? Or to contribute to a $300 million dollar prize for the development of batteries for plug-in hybrids? Or give foreign aid to Israel? And why is John McCain so eager to expropriate my money to pay for his priorities?

John McCain might think it's the role of government to use my money to "provide $5,000 for health insurance to every American family". But those of us who cherish genuine American values know that that's just a fancy way of saying that he wants to spread the wealth.

This is socialism, pure and simple. John McCain believes that the President and the Congress should have the right to expropriate our money, and spend it on what they think matters. It's un-American, and I, for one, can no longer be a part of it.

That's why I'm moving to Somalia, where I can live under a limited, err, nonexistent government that respects my freedoms, as the Founding Fathers intended.

 

[Bryan]

I'll go ahead and say out loud what a few others besides myself are probably also thinking, but are afraid to say: what's so bad about socialism? How did socialism ever get such a bad name in this country?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I already KNOW how socialism got such a bad reputation, and it mainly has to do with decades of strident bashing from right-wing reactionaries. But a modern society can't function without at least a measure of socialism, and I think we in this country need more of it.

 

[BlahBlah12]

I'll go ahead and say out loud what a few others besides myself are probably also thinking, but are afraid to say: what's so bad about socialism? How did socialism ever get such a bad name in this country?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I already KNOW how socialism got such a bad reputation, and it mainly has to do with decades of strident bashing from right-wing reactionaries. But a modern society can't function without at least a measure of socialism, and I think we in this country need more of it.

Because America thinks its better than any other country in every sense so it doesnt need to look at previous histories since nothing applies to America's greatness.
America CAN take a lesson from its friends over in Europe sometimes.

 

[ali777]

I'm not sure if I get it.

I'm gonna borrow a comment from the link: "it's only socialism when Democrats propose it. When John McCain proposes massive, government engineered wealth transfers and nationalization schemes, it's a rock-ribbed, flag-waving, freedom-loving response to help real Americans in need."

Basically, if my understanding is correct, the article is meant to be critical of those who describe Obama as a socialist/communist?

 

[The Gardener]

Basically, if my understanding is correct, the article is meant to be critical of those who describe Obama as a socialist/communist?

You got it. The article is very sarcastic.

 

[iamnaked]

Republican hypocrisy has been bringing the lulz for ages:

See also -

We hate elitism (Obama) but any action to make the elite 5% richest pay more tax is terrible.

and...

We hate liberalism but we don't like being told what to do by government.

 

[Hammy070]

All I know is, as a citizen of a nation, I want to go to hospital when I'm ill, and have them treat me as a citizen, and not as a customer.

 

[ali777]

Socialism is a precursor, a "middle-step" if you will, to marxism. So, you ask, "why socialism has got such a bad rap" - it goes against everything the United States was founded on.

Fredom does not = socialism. :nono:

I'm not opposed to Obama's ideas - they are far from socialism. I will support either president that gets elected.

and what exactly is wrong with marxism? Karl Marx was a thinker at the time of the industrial revolution and he highlighted some of the problems "common labourers" faced. Now, as someone who tries to be middle of the roar Average Jo, why exactly are you against Marx?

 

[badasshairday III]

and what exactly is wrong with marxism? Karl Marx was a thinker at the time of the industrial revolution and he highlighted some of the problems "common labourers" faced. Now, as someone who tries to be middle of the roar Average Jo, why exactly are you against Marx?

Because it supports freeloading. Why work hard to get somewhere in life when you can just kick back and get your pay? Why would somebody go through intense schooling to get paid the same as the lazy person who didn't take education seriously? Why would somebody try to be an entrepreneur and develop a new business when it requires so much work to get a business off the ground? Where would be the incentive to innovate and work hard?

So even if you are a middle of the road average Jo, it doesn't mean you are a person who believes you deserve entitlements at the expense of people who worked hard to get to where they are. It just means you believe you too can work hard and get there as well.

 

[ali777]

and what exactly is wrong with marxism? Karl Marx was a thinker at the time of the industrial revolution and he highlighted some of the problems "common labourers" faced. Now, as someone who tries to be middle of the roar Average Jo, why exactly are you against Marx?

Because it supports freeloading. Why work hard to get somewhere in life when you can just kick back and get your pay? Why would somebody go through intense schooling to get paid the same as the lazy person who didn't take education seriously? Why would somebody try to be an entrepreneur and develop a new business when it requires so much work to get a business off the ground? Where would be the incentive to innovate and work hard?

So even if you are a middle of the road average Jo, it doesn't mean you are a person who believes you deserve entitlements at the expense of people who worked hard to get to where they are. It just means you believe you too can work hard and get there as well.

Marxism doesn't support freeloading... It concentrates more on labour rights. I don't know about the trade unions in the US but Western Europe used to have a very strong culture of trade unions. So, you think those unions are all freeloaders, or just organisation looking after the interests of their members? marxism is an extension of that culture, it's got ideological dimension as well, but we are strictly talking about economics and exploitation here....

I am with you on education and working hard. Someone who works hard should be rewarded for it, but that doesn't mean I support exploitation of labour.

Besides, education is somehow overrated these days. I have a few degrees and I speak a few languages, but I know the syllabus even at university level is a joke these days. I used to work at uni, and keeping the students happy was our primary goal. Most of the university graduates can't even solve a simple mathematical question. In some western countries more than 50% of the current generation have university degrees, and frankly those degrees are worth nothing....

"education" is merely a proof that a person can be a tool for a global corporation....

 

[Hammy070]

There needs to be aspects of socialism or there would be little point in governments at all. Nobody should be fully any -ism. Depending on your circumstances, one political methodology may benefit you, and one may not. It's important to have a balance and open attitude. The government by it's very nature of existance, is socialist. It applies concepts to all of society, it treats populations, not individuals.

That is why I am in favour of whatever makes sense. For example, I believe in the welfare state and that every person has a right to basic needs, but don't believe in over-regulation that forces companies to break up because they are just too successful, what message does that send to the aspiring? I also think that the current widespread "all the banks and/or bad economic policies of the government caused thecredit crunch etc." mentality is an avoidance of responsibility. It takes two parties to get a mortgage. A nation of borrowers, means the banks are less for banking, more for funding. The state of the banks reflect it's account holders. This doesn't mean I agree with the banking system or fractional reserve banking, but the people themselves who borrowed also must take responsibility. The running candidates today wouldn't get very far though if they told their voters they are cause of the problem. :crazy:

 

[Bryan]

There needs to be aspects of socialism or there would be little point in governments at all....The government by it's very nature of existance, is socialist.

Damn, Hammy, it scares me when I find myself agreeing with you!

 

[Old Baldy]

I'll go ahead and say out loud what a few others besides myself are probably also thinking, but are afraid to say: what's so bad about socialism? How did socialism ever get such a bad name in this country?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course. I already KNOW how socialism got such a bad reputation, and it mainly has to do with decades of strident bashing from right-wing reactionaries. But a modern society can't function without at least a measure of socialism, and I think we in this country need more of it.

Even this rabid right winger agrees in the main with you Bryan. It's a matter of degree IMHO.

However, I like the motto "you reap what you sow". I find, from talking to people over the years, that almost all of them agree with that "saying". But we should try and help a guy/gal who is honestly struggling. That's ok with me.

You know, it's always the "abusers" that gets righties and lefties so angry.

Like this sub-prime lending debacle where selfish, stupid individual borrowers received loans they could never afford unless they "flipped" the house and executives getting MASSIVE bonuses, golden parachutes, etc., for essentially contributing to the worst market performance since 1931.

Da** Hammy, we finally agree in the main!! It does take "two to tango" doesn't it?! (Now, if I could only get you to embrace our 2nd Amendment more. )

 

[CCS]

McCain's fiscal goals are so disheartening. Makes me less sad about an Obama win. It just is so unfair that so many people take out huge loans they don't deserve, and then get bailed out at the expense of people who live within their means. The vast majority of the population is against it, but we have no power to veto congress.

The only good thing I see coming from an Obama presidency is abortion legalized in all 50 states, and fully funded. That should curb the number of unwanted kids amoung 18 year old parents, and greatly reduce poverty levels. It might even make up for the dumb fiscal policies McCain and Obama want.

...

I'll hire one employee. That will be easy to manage, and he can't unionize. I don't know if it is worth buying a truck and worrying about the employee's performance for and extra $5 or $10 per hour, though.