We are screwed.

[Thomas Cameron]

Jason Hayes wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2008 11:50:39 Thomas Cameron wrote:
>> keith smith wrote:
>>> A president with a socialist view is much better?  He wants to tax your
>>> business to help those who do not want to help themselves.
>> BWAHAHAHAAAA!  Are you serious?  I mean, *really* - this is hogwash and
>> you should know better.
>>
>> One misquote != socialist agenda, and anyone who stoops low enough to
>> try to twist it that way is either a liar or an idiot.
> 
> Actually, Keith is correct. Obama and many others in our government do 
> advocate socialist policies. By that I mean that they advocate growing the 
> government's ownership and/or ability to control the means of production in 
> our society. They also advocate the creation of a more "egalitarian" society, 
> in which wealth is distributed evenly throughout. (Definitions of egalitarian 
> and evenly will vary.)
> 
> You all heard the "spread the wealth around" quote and it was in no way taken 
> out of context. That comment was advocating socialism and blustering won't 
> make it any less so. If you support the notion, man up and admit it. Don't 
> back away from it and try to equivocate on the definition of the word.
> 
>> And if you think for one second that nationalizing the banks like Bush
>> and Company did, even partially, is not a "socialist" move then you're
>> smoking crack.
> 
> You see, you do understand the meaning of the term. So I am not sure why 
> you're not willing to apply it evenly across both parties.

The reason for my using quotes was that I do not believe that Obama is 
any more socialist than Bush.  Which is to say, not at all *by the 
definition* of the smear campaign.  The US is certainly socialist in 
many ways.  We have socialized education.  Arguably, we have socialized 
medicine when you take into account that indigent folks still get 
medical care at the taxpayers' expense.  But in the "ooh, socialism is 
from those pinko Commie bastards" context that the Republicans are 
using, no, Obama's not socialist.

Is he trying to make it more fair, so that the fat cats and 
megacorporations pay their fair share?  I believe so.  Is that 
socialist?  Nope.  It's fair.

> What Bush and Paulsen (and McCain and Obama and every other member of the 
> Congress that voted for the bailout package) advocated was, very clearly, 
> socialist. They were trying to, and did to a large extent, nationalize our 
> banking system.

In the true meaning of the word, yeah, I absolutely agree.  But again, I 
am referring to the Republican's "pinko Commie" boogeyman use.

> That is socialist, by definition. Just because Bush advocates it and he happens 
> to have an "R" beside his name doesn't make it a free-market option by a long 
> shot.
> 
>> Obama is no more a Socialist than Bush is.
> 
> Again, you do appear to understand the meaning of the term. So now we can all 
> just admit that they both advocate socialist policies. Obama is just further 
> along the scale than Bush is.
> 
>> And the reality is that the
>> *vast* majority of small business owners do not make more than
>> $250K/year, so that argument is complete bullshit as well.
> 
> For those who missed the repeated updates on that particular promise from 
> Obama. It started at $300K/yr. Then it moved to $250K, then $200K, then $150K 
> (Biden), then $120K (Gov Richardson NM).
> 
> During the primaries, Obama referred to the those who make more than $97,000 
> as the top earners. Additionally, Obama has voted to raise taxes on anyone 
> making more than $42,000.

Holy out of context, Batman! 
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_whoppers_of_2008_--_the_sequel.html 
pretty much flays that $42,000 argument, it is in reference to one bill, 
NOT the upper class making $200,000 or more per year.  In that respect, 
you are correct, I was wrong.  It is $200,000 per year, not $250,000. 
Either way, the vast majority of us will not feel any pinch.

> You can make the argument that Richardson isn't in Obama's inner circle if you 
> want. However, the progression was clear. When he had a chance, he reduced the 
> number that made you "rich" in his eyes regularly. And, like it or not, there 
> are a lot of small business owners that gross more than $42,000, $97,000, 
> $120,000, or $150,000 a year. 

Apples and oranges again, congrats.  The $2K number was a bill that was 
never passed.  Also, again according to 
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html, a 
single person making $42,000 would have seen a $15 per year increase in 
taxes.  Hardly the back-breaker the Republicans make it out to be.

More deception.  Nice.

> Put more simply, there's no way that Obama can implement his more than $1 
> trillion in spending increases -- over and above Bush's massive spending 
> increases -- and not increase taxes.

Well, unless maybe we stop prosecuting this immoral war in Iraq and stop 
blowing obscene amounts of money there.

Lies and half-truths don't score any points with me.  There is a lot of 
context and history that gets ignored, admittedly by both sides.  My 
point here is that continuing to propagate this misinformation is wrong.

Thomas