McCain's Hero: More Socialist Than Obama!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

McCain can call Obama a socialist or he can call Teddy Roosevelt his hero. He can't do both.

By Timothy Noah

Imagine that instead of telling Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher that "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody," Barack Obama had said the following:

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

The New York Post's Page One would blare: "OBAMA: I'LL SEIZE 'SWOLLEN FORTUNES'!" Bill Kristol would demand to know, in his New York Times column, what godly powers enabled Obama to discern precisely whose wealth—David Geffen's? George Soros'?—would "benefit the community." On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly would start to say something, then sputter, turn purple, and keel over backward in a grand mal seizure.

John McCain, meanwhile, would have to stop saying that Teddy Roosevelt is his hero, because the passage quoted above is from T.R.'s "New Nationalism" speech of 1910. Either that, or McCain would have to quit calling Barack Obama a socialist.

T.R. justified progressive taxation straightforwardly as a matter of equality. In his 1907 State of the Union address, Roosevelt said:

Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law,

and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows

[italics mine].

Obama is constrained by a very different political climate to justify his sole proposed tax hike—on incomes above $250,000—by stating its benefit to commerce. Here's his "spread the wealth around" comment in context (for a more complete transcription, click here):

I do believe that for folks like me, who have worked hard but, frankly, have also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who, things are slow, and she can barely make the rent. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody.

In a radio address on Oct. 18, McCain said that to the "straight-talking," "plainspoken" Wurzelbacher, words like "spread the wealth around"

sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. … At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama.

In an Oct. 22 speech in Manchester, N.H., McCain expostulated further:

Joe and guys like him will earn the wealth. Barack and politicians like him will spread it. Joe didn't really like that idea, and neither did a lot of other folks who believe that their earnings are their own. After all, before government can redistribute wealth, it has to confiscate wealth from those who earned it. And whatever the right word is for that way of thinking, the redistribution of wealth is the last thing America needs right now. In these tough economic times, we don't need government "spreading the wealth"—we need policies that create wealth and spread opportunity.

When T.R. spoke of "swollen fortunes" and "malefactors of great wealth," socialism was a genuine force in American politics, perceived by many to pose a serious threat to the social order. When T.R. first called for a "graduated income tax" in his 1907 State of the Union, he was proposing a measure that the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional. Indeed, the federal income tax struck down by the Court wasn't even "graduated," or progressive; it was a flat-rate tax. Today, McCain demagogically attacks Obama's purported "socialism" knowing that socialism is a dead letter in the United States. He feigns shock at progressive taxation ("confiscate wealth") nearly a century after the states ratified the 16^th Amendment, enabling Congress to enact a progressive income tax, and nearly a decade after he himself scolded a town-hall questioner on MSNBC's Hardball who cried "socialism" about the rich having to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. "Here's what I really believe," McCain said. "When you are—reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

In his book The Great Tax Wars, Steven Weisman, formerly of the New York Times, writes that T.R.'s previous experience as police commissioner of New York City made him worry "about anarchy arising from gross economic inequality." Today, the income gap between the top 0.01 percent of families in the United States and the bottom 90 percent is greater than it was in T.R.'s day. The last time it was anywhere near so great was in 1929. The top marginal income-tax rate, meanwhile, is near its historic low in the late 1920s. Those of you seeking a cause to the current financial meltdown may draw your own conclusions. (For more on taxes and historic patterns of inequality in the United States, click here.)

T.R., of course, was no socialist. Indeed, his purpose was largely to prevent socialists from coming to power. But the trust buster got called a socialist a lot more often than Obama ever will. He writes in his autobiography:

Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble even to notice the epithet. … Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are high-minded and honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social reformers. They are opposed to the brutalities and industrial injustices which we see everywhere about us.

T.R. then goes on to outline his strong differences "with the Marxian Socialists" and their belief in class warfare and the inevitable demise of capitalism. Later, he returns to his earlier theme:

Many of the men who call themselves socialists today are in reality merely radical social reformers, with whom on many points good citizens can and ought to work in hearty general agreement, and whom in many practical matters of government good citizens can well afford to follow.

There were, however, limits to T.R.'s tolerance. "I have always maintained," he concluded, "that our worst revolutionaries today are those reactionaries who do not see and will not admit there is any need for change."

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/

[SpiritAlight 1]

Some recent releases and great reads.

I implore you McCain fans to read these, although it is not good to judge anyone, when someone has applied for the president's position, some scrutiny is required.

Enjoy!

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/news-bites/...his-fellow-pow/

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstor...eal_john_mccain

Great find J!

[IAMX 3,055]

The cry against socialism has been nonsense. If you wonder why the millions who are pushing for universal don't listen to people who whine about socialism, it's because their own party pretends to hate it yet still does practice it. Republicans have become the party of haters in the closet in sore need of being dragged out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The cry against socialism has been nonsense. If you wonder why the millions who are pushing for universal don't listen to people who whine about socialism, it's because their own party pretends to hate it yet still does practice it. Republicans have become the party of haters in the closet in sore need of being dragged out.

What I think is an interesting contrast - is that T.R. understood the validity of arguments made by Socialists during his time and didn't just dismiss everything they said or stood for as rubbish, even if Marxism in its totality is rubbish.

[IAMX 3,055]

The cry against socialism has been nonsense. If you wonder why the millions who are pushing for universal don't listen to people who whine about socialism, it's because their own party pretends to hate it yet still does practice it. Republicans have become the party of haters in the closet in sore need of being dragged out.

What I think is an interesting contrast - is that T.R. understood the validity of arguments made by Socialists during his time and didn't just dismiss everything they said or stood for as rubbish, even if Marxism in its totality is rubbish.

It's so amazing how we still suffer from the red scare. Yet people aren't scared of Bush's doctrine of having the executive move closer to a single branch rule? Do people even know Bush has used signing statements like the line item veto to redefine whatever portion of a law he wishes? I mean, people suddenly started hearing Cheney is outside the executive branch therefore is under no scrutiny whatsoever. They said it themselves it would be much easier to be a dictatorship. Wonder why we're not scared of that, instead, scared of things from other countries that we didn't even experience ourselves locally. Yet we're more comfortable with this #######? It just doesn't add up.

The problem in every circumstance isn't the STYLE of government, but how they use their power. People are just well too hung up on simplistic words rather than thinking a little bit deeper about it. Makes it far easier to criticize while being retarded at the same time.

Edited October 24, 2008 by SRVT

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The cry against socialism has been nonsense. If you wonder why the millions who are pushing for universal don't listen to people who whine about socialism, it's because their own party pretends to hate it yet still does practice it. Republicans have become the party of haters in the closet in sore need of being dragged out.

The allegations of socialism against Obama are, for lack of a better word, just dumb.

Obama isn't pushing for government to take ownership of the banks and the means of production. People fretting over a shake-up of the higher end of the existing tax scale (which won't affect the vast majority of Americans) are being about as hysterical as its possible to be.

In fact the only thing that's close to socialism that we've seen so far is the economic bailout.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[dalegg 143]

Republicans have become the party of haters in the closet in sore need of being dragged out.

Republicans are not in the closet about hating socialism.

[IAMX 3,055]

Republicans have become the party of haters in the closet in sore need of being dragged out.

Republicans are not in the closet about hating socialism.

I mean being out of the closet about hating it, being in the closet about privately supporting it.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Hmm...where the hell is this socialist coming from?

Obama isn't a socialist. These media is attacking Obama because of the simple layman statement he made, "spreading the wealth."

I heard a caller into Laura Ingram from Fox (supporter of McCain Palin 08), saying "I lived in a socialist country, and I know what it's like that's why I'm not voting for Obama."

Freaking people listening to the media and believing every word they say. Obama is still taxing the middle income America, but, he's taxing more on businesses over 250,000 dollars.

He's using the money so that we can repair, and build America infrastructure. Not really using the money and giving it directly into the people's bank account. Geezes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hmm...where the hell is this socialist coming from?

Obama isn't a socialist. These media is attacking Obama because of the simple layman statement he made, "spreading the wealth."

I heard a caller into Laura Ingram from Fox (supporter of McCain Palin 08), saying "I lived in a socialist country, and I know what it's like that's why I'm not voting for Obama."

Freaking people listening to the media and believing every word they say. Obama is still taxing the middle income America, but, he's taxing more on businesses over 250,000 dollars.

He's using the money so that we can repair, and build America infrastructure. Not really using the money and giving it directly into the people's bank account. Geezes.

Yep. Nothing but reactionary fear mongering...feeding on people's ignorance.

[Danno 1,228]

McCain can call Obama a socialist or he can call Teddy Roosevelt his hero. He can't do both.

By Timothy Noah

Imagine that instead of telling Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher that "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody," Barack Obama had said the following:

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

The New York Post's Page One would blare: "OBAMA: I'LL SEIZE 'SWOLLEN FORTUNES'!" Bill Kristol would demand to know, in his New York Times column, what godly powers enabled Obama to discern precisely whose wealth—David Geffen's? George Soros'?—would "benefit the community." On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly would start to say something, then sputter, turn purple, and keel over backward in a grand mal seizure.

John McCain, meanwhile, would have to stop saying that Teddy Roosevelt is his hero, because the passage quoted above is from T.R.'s "New Nationalism" speech of 1910. Either that, or McCain would have to quit calling Barack Obama a socialist.

T.R. justified progressive taxation straightforwardly as a matter of equality. In his 1907 State of the Union address, Roosevelt said:

Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law,

and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to his fellows

[italics mine].

Obama is constrained by a very different political climate to justify his sole proposed tax hike—on incomes above $250,000—by stating its benefit to commerce. Here's his "spread the wealth around" comment in context (for a more complete transcription, click here):

I do believe that for folks like me, who have worked hard but, frankly, have also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there who, things are slow, and she can barely make the rent. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's going to be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody.

In a radio address on Oct. 18, McCain said that to the "straight-talking," "plainspoken" Wurzelbacher, words like "spread the wealth around"

sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. … At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama.

In an Oct. 22 speech in Manchester, N.H., McCain expostulated further:

Joe and guys like him will earn the wealth. Barack and politicians like him will spread it. Joe didn't really like that idea, and neither did a lot of other folks who believe that their earnings are their own. After all, before government can redistribute wealth, it has to confiscate wealth from those who earned it. And whatever the right word is for that way of thinking, the redistribution of wealth is the last thing America needs right now. In these tough economic times, we don't need government "spreading the wealth"—we need policies that create wealth and spread opportunity.

When T.R. spoke of "swollen fortunes" and "malefactors of great wealth," socialism was a genuine force in American politics, perceived by many to pose a serious threat to the social order. When T.R. first called for a "graduated income tax" in his 1907 State of the Union, he was proposing a measure that the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional. Indeed, the federal income tax struck down by the Court wasn't even "graduated," or progressive; it was a flat-rate tax. Today, McCain demagogically attacks Obama's purported "socialism" knowing that socialism is a dead letter in the United States. He feigns shock at progressive taxation ("confiscate wealth") nearly a century after the states ratified the 16^th Amendment, enabling Congress to enact a progressive income tax, and nearly a decade after he himself scolded a town-hall questioner on MSNBC's Hardball who cried "socialism" about the rich having to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. "Here's what I really believe," McCain said. "When you are—reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more."

In his book The Great Tax Wars, Steven Weisman, formerly of the New York Times, writes that T.R.'s previous experience as police commissioner of New York City made him worry "about anarchy arising from gross economic inequality." Today, the income gap between the top 0.01 percent of families in the United States and the bottom 90 percent is greater than it was in T.R.'s day. The last time it was anywhere near so great was in 1929. The top marginal income-tax rate, meanwhile, is near its historic low in the late 1920s. Those of you seeking a cause to the current financial meltdown may draw your own conclusions. (For more on taxes and historic patterns of inequality in the United States, click here.)

T.R., of course, was no socialist. Indeed, his purpose was largely to prevent socialists from coming to power. But the trust buster got called a socialist a lot more often than Obama ever will. He writes in his autobiography:

Because of things I have done on behalf of justice to the workingman, I have often been called a Socialist. Usually I have not taken the trouble even to notice the epithet. … Moreover, I know that many American Socialists are high-minded and honorable citizens, who in reality are merely radical social reformers. They are opposed to the brutalities and industrial injustices which we see everywhere about us.

T.R. then goes on to outline his strong differences "with the Marxian Socialists" and their belief in class warfare and the inevitable demise of capitalism. Later, he returns to his earlier theme:

Many of the men who call themselves socialists today are in reality merely radical social reformers, with whom on many points good citizens can and ought to work in hearty general agreement, and whom in many practical matters of government good citizens can well afford to follow.

There were, however, limits to T.R.'s tolerance. "I have always maintained," he concluded, "that our worst revolutionaries today are those reactionaries who do not see and will not admit there is any need for change."

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/

Your post would have went a lot further had you listed exactly how Teddy "spread the wealth around".

You see we have two issues or questions here.

1. Should all people pay the same percentage... a "flat tax" to finance the cost of govt.... Or should the rich pay a higher percentage> It would seem Teddy R. would say yes.

2. Should we tax the rich at higher rates so we can not only pay for Govt but also to give money directly to others who would like to have it?

See you never blunted the main charge at Obama. A progressive income tax is a given.

What most people are uncomfortable with is the idea of taking money from one group to hand out to another.

Here is a perfect example of how this is done:

Under "the earned income tax" millions and millions of people who paid almost nothing in for federal taxes will get a check from Washington, up to 3 or so thousand dollars.

They had to have made a minimal amount working and not exceeded a maximum.

I myself have collected this welfare type payment as have many of you.

Barack has pledged to raise this give-away.

Thats the difference with Barack, he is a socialist at heart, wanting to not only make rich people pay more to fund govt, he wants to redistribute wealth.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Your post would have went a lot further had you listed exactly how Teddy "spread the wealth around".

You see we have two issues or questions here.

1. Should all people pay the same percentage... a "flat tax" to finance the cost of govt.... Or should the rich pay a higher percentage> It would seem Teddy R. would say yes.

2. Should we tax the rich at higher rates so we can not only pay for Govt but also to give money directly to others who would like to have it?

See you never blunted the main charge at Obama. A progressive income tax is a given.

What most people are uncomfortable with is the idea of taking money from one group to hand out to another.

Here is a perfect example of how this is done:

Under "the earned income tax" millions and millions of people who paid almost nothing in for federal taxes will get a check from Washington, up to 3 or so thousand dollars.

They had to have made a minimal amount working and not exceeded a maximum.

I myself have collected this welfare type payment as have many of you.

Barack has pledged to raise this give-away.

Thats the difference with Barack, he is a socialist at heart, wanting to not only make rich people pay more to fund govt, he wants to redistribute wealth.

First, a progressive tax policy was not invented by Obama, nor is he the first presidential candidate to suggest it. In fact, all he wants to do is repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy that Bush gave, bringing us back to the time of Bill Clinton.

Secondly, by the parameters that you are using to define redistribution of wealth, then you must also recognize that when worker's wages have remained essentially stagnant for a great majority of Americans while the top income earners wages have gone up significantly is also a redistribution of wealth. From top to bottom, a company for example, creates profit through the hard work of all its employees. If all the employees are not getting fairly compensated in ratio to the top executives' pay, then you have a severe case of redistribution of wealth, which, according to you, is Socialism.

As for the Earned Income Tax Credit, do you realize which President implemented that program? Yep, you guessed it....the 'ol Gipper himself. If you're gonna call Obama a socialist for his progressive tax proposal, just be consistent and also call Ronald Reagan a socialist with the same condemnation.

Hopefully you'll see the double standard being played out over this issue among the Republican Party. This amounts to nothing more than schoolyard name-calling.

[Niels Bohr 72]

There's a lot of ignorance around, don't you think Jabberwocky?

Spreading the wealth is laymen term for taxation. It's not about dividing assets for all people. What is a socialist?

WIKI: SOCIALISM

There's also a socialist party in the US. Unfortunately, Obama isn't one of them. Let me speak for the people who cannot comprehend the idea of socialism and brought it against OBAMA. First, you need to go into your encyclopedia and read about socialism. Second, you need to read Karl Marx.

If you haven't done either of these two things, consider yourself an ignorant.

Edited October 26, 2008 by consolemaster

[Danno 1,228]

Your post would have went a lot further had you listed exactly how Teddy "spread the wealth around".

You see we have two issues or questions here.

1. Should all people pay the same percentage... a "flat tax" to finance the cost of govt.... Or should the rich pay a higher percentage> It would seem Teddy R. would say yes.

2. Should we tax the rich at higher rates so we can not only pay for Govt but also to give money directly to others who would like to have it?

See you never blunted the main charge at Obama. A progressive income tax is a given.

What most people are uncomfortable with is the idea of taking money from one group to hand out to another.

Here is a perfect example of how this is done:

Under "the earned income tax" millions and millions of people who paid almost nothing in for federal taxes will get a check from Washington, up to 3 or so thousand dollars.

They had to have made a minimal amount working and not exceeded a maximum.

I myself have collected this welfare type payment as have many of you.

Barack has pledged to raise this give-away.

Thats the difference with Barack, he is a socialist at heart, wanting to not only make rich people pay more to fund govt, he wants to redistribute wealth.

First, a progressive tax policy was not invented by Obama, nor is he the first presidential candidate to suggest it. In fact, all he wants to do is repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy that Bush gave, bringing us back to the time of Bill Clinton.

Secondly, by the parameters that you are using to define redistribution of wealth, then you must also recognize that when worker's wages have remained essentially stagnant for a great majority of Americans while the top income earners wages have gone up significantly is also a redistribution of wealth. From top to bottom, a company for example, creates profit through the hard work of all its employees. If all the employees are not getting fairly compensated in ratio to the top executives' pay, then you have a severe case of redistribution of wealth, which, according to you, is Socialism.

As for the Earned Income Tax Credit, do you realize which President implemented that program? Yep, you guessed it....the 'ol Gipper himself. If you're gonna call Obama a socialist for his progressive tax proposal, just be consistent and also call Ronald Reagan a socialist with the same condemnation.

Hopefully you'll see the double standard being played out over this issue among the Republican Party. This amounts to nothing more than schoolyard name-calling.

I believe the Earned income tax credit was not vetoed by Bush 1, so it does hang around his neck.not Reagan's ( as best I recall).

But we both know which party birthed it.

Are you of the opinion that the workings of the "free Market"... can somehow be called socialism?

You suggest that because the rich got richer in a free market... somehow that COULD be considered socialism (wealth being distributed)

My friend you are way long on that stretch.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Danno

[SpiritAlight 1]

There's a lot of ignorance around, don't you think Jabberwocky?

Spreading the wealth is laymen term for taxation. It's not about dividing assets for all people. What is a socialist?

WIKI: SOCIALISM

There's also a socialist party in the US. Unfortunately, Obama isn't one of them. Let me speak for the people who cannot comprehend the idea of socialism and brought it against OBAMA. First, you need to go into your encyclopedia and read about socialism. Second, you need to read Karl Marx.

If you haven't done either of these two things, consider yourself an ignorant.

WORD!!!

Let's not forget that it these same people that think socialism = communism.

They believe that it is the same thing.

Wake up and smell the dictionary!