Obama plan not socialism
Charles Linderman, Carrington
In another desperate jab at Barack Obama, John McCain finds fault with Obama's stated desire to "spread the wealth around." McCain says Obama's plans are socialism.
I always thought it was preferable to spread the wealth around rather than concentrate it with a few individuals as in some Third-World banana republic. But, perhaps if you are married to a wealthy heiress and own seven homes, it is excusable if you don't understand the concept.
Everyone has seen the statistics. In the last two or three decades, larger and larger percentages of America's wealth has accumulated in the hands of smaller and smaller percentages of the population. While no one, including Obama, is suggesting that everyone should be exactly equal in wealth, a more equitable distribution of wealth is good for the economy and good for democracy. Note to McCain: We have class warfare in America. Your side is winning!
McCain should get an economics professor to explain the various economic systems to him. Defining Obama's plans as socialism would surely earn him a failing grade in any introductory economics course.
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
Andrew1
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-03-08 8:11 AM
|
Charles Linderman...If you want welfare, then go get on it, there's programs for that. But Obama's plan is socialism, no matter how you look at it. I'm not the richest person in the world but I don't need anybody else's wealth spread my way, that's pathetic and so are you.
|
|
Shorty
|
|
|
10-31-08 11:52 PM
|
I am sorry I didn't spell EATS right
|
|
Shorty
|
|
|
10-31-08 11:49 PM
|
Yes, and if someone hoards all the fish hooks no one ears
|
|
42jeff
|
|
|
10-31-08 10:16 AM
|
If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him to fish, and he can feed himself for a lifttime. That same proverb with Democratic principles applied would go like this: Give a man a fish, and he'll be back tomorrow with five of his friends for more fish. Teach a man to fish, and he'll complain that you're wasting his time and demand more fish.
|
|
42jeff
|
|
|
10-31-08 10:16 AM
|
to begin with was upset because he got nothing. If the wealthier in America do finally decide they’ve had it and either leave the country or close their doors, the economic downturn we’ve experienced the past few months will be nothing in comparison. The jolt the nation will feel when Atlas does finally shrug will resound around the planet and for years to come. And as far as your argument that the percentage of the haves to the have nots getting slimmer I think is probably due to the fact that when you give hand outs regularly, the people who are getting them will cease trying to fend for themselves and just wait for the handouts. Any body who's dropped a salt lick in the woods regularly before deer hunting season knows EXACTLY what I'm talking about...
|
|
42jeff
|
|
|
10-31-08 10:12 AM
|
won’t they just lay people off or increase prices rather than see diminished profits? Some goods will get more expensive meanwhile there are more people out of work. How does this help the economy? How is this “patriotic”? Another candidate says he wants across the board tax cuts and is criticized for giving larger breaks to the rich. Only that’s fair, see? An evenly applied tax break will benefit the more wealthy because they’re already paying a larger share of the tax load. I saw a story once about six men who dined regularly at a restaurant and divided the bill up proportionately by income. The one making the least ate free while the wealthiest paid the most. One day the waiter gave the men a 10% refund for their faithful business. The men decided to split up the discount by the same ratio that they paid by. The next poorest wound up eating free while the one paying the most got the largest refund. The other men were angered at their smaller refunds and the one eating free
|
|
42jeff
|
|
|
10-31-08 10:11 AM
|
Now explain to me how taking the money away from people who worked for it and giving it somebody who didn't isn't socialism. When Obama said "spreading the wealth around is good for everybody" it was clear what he was implying. What are businessmen to think if a substantial tax hike is put on them at the same time the low income bracket is given a large tax reduction? What if those driving forces in our country that worked hard to be successful suddenly realize they’ve had enough of being taken advantage of and close their doors? What then? Redistribution of wealth is not what this country was founded on. “Socialism” is defined as “the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.” It needs to be understood that it’s the big companies that decide whether or not to build a new store or factory. If they are suddenly burdened by a heavier tax load to “spread the wealth”,
|