McCain is, unsurprisingly, a “socialist” too, by his own definition. From the same article:
Incidentally, the article also points out that (according to McCain/Palin), the difference between capitalism and socialism is somewhere between a top marginal income-tax rate of 35% and 39.6%. Is 36% still capitalism? 37%?
Is there anyone here who takes the McCain campaign seriously with this “socialism” allegation, and if so, why aren’t Mccain and Palin also fellow travellers?
Palin, in particular, has a documented history of taking money away from very wealthy entities and literally redistributing that wealth in the form of checks to people who don’t pay taxes. One of the reasons she was popular in AK was because she increased the size of those checks.
Who wants to explain why Obama’s a socialist but not McCain or Palin?
Also, why do we hear these decontextualized quotes from Obama talking about using community organization to bring about “redistributative change in economically depressed communities,” but nothing about Palin bragging about “sharing the wealth” in Alaska by taking money away from oil companies and giving it away to all and sundry?
Sharing the profits from a state’s natural resources, while still allowing companies that develop those resources, is not socialism. A natural resource is quite different from an invention. The resource is just sitting there for the taking, while an invention doesn’t exist without the inventor.
While Obama is not a socialist, his idea of “sharing the wealth” is closer to that concept since it is more generally applied to wealth generated through individual effort, as opposed to leasing rights to companies that dig stuff out of the ground on land owned by the state.
If you are seriously puzzled by this type of argument, then this must be your first dabbling in politics. Since we know that isn’t true, then clearly you are not puzzled by this.
I won’t speak for the McCain example, but the Palin example is not an example of ‘socialism’.
The Alaska checks are based on the royalties the oil companies pay for the right to drill the oil. The oil is a public resource, so the oil companies are paying the people of Alaska for the right to take away their resource (indirectly of course, the amount of royalties would be negotiated and distributed by the state government).
This seems fair, it would be far more outrageous and stupid for a state to just give away it’s oil for free.
What a load of crap. Oil doesn’t exist wiythout labor and capital either. By your logic, all farmers should be levied for their use of land.
Um…no. Obama has no such idea. At least no more than McCain does.
I’m puzzled as to why Obama’s a socialist but McCain and Palin are not. Why is a 39% tax rate on the to 5% socialism but not a rate of 35%?
Why did Palin say “share the wealth?” According to her, that phrase is proof positive that someone is a socialist.
She’s done exactly what she falsely accuses Obama of wanting to do. She’s taken money away from rich people and given it away to anybody in a double wide. Why isn’t she a Marxist?
That one is easy. The news is lazy. They are just taking the talking points from the campaigns and little else. The Obama campaign aren’ty talking about this stuff AFAISK as they are talking about what they are going to do rather than hail mary passes at the end of a one sided game.
Oh man, you conservatives just slay me sometimes. When a Latin American or Middle Eastern country talks about nationalizing its oil assets and “sharing the wealth”, even if they still allow multinational private contracting companies to take some profits out of the extraction and development part, it’s always called a “socialist” policy or trending towards “socialism instead of capitalism”, or some such.
But when those good old God-fearing gun-owning Alaska Republicans are doing it, why, it just can’t be socialism! Socialism is what leftists do. Collectivist ownership and public profit-sharing from state-owned resources just can’t be socialism if right-wingers are doing it! Thanks for the giggle, John.
Can you cite where I’ve called such regimes “socialist” in that context? If some right-wingers do that, then that’s their problem, not mine.
Well, I can tell from all that hay you’re throwing around that you’ve picked out your Halloween costume. Stay away from those pumpkins with lit candles in them.
Factually incorrect. Oil exists without labor. Gasoline might not exist, but oil is sittin’ there in the ground (as Palin would say).
If they were farming on land owned by the state, then yes, they should.
Um, you were comparing Palin and Obama on that point.
It’s campaign bullshit on McCain and Palin’s part. But you knew that.
Because she’s a dimwit.
No. Rich people didn’t own the oil in the first place. The oil companies knew upfront what they would have to pay to extract the oil, and they agreed to do so.
Well okay then, I apologize for lumping you in with other non-leftists who don’t share your intellectual rigor when it comes to carefully defining “socialism”. But c’mon, you surely must be aware that such broad-brush allegations of “socialism” are par for the course in conservative discourse. In particular, that kind of broad-bruch allegation applied to Obama’s policies is precisely what this thread is about.
Evasive and unhelpful. Oil does not exist in any humanly useful form without labor, any more than edible plants do.
Only because the jackbooted thugs of collectivist government got there first, dude! There are plenty of in-the-ground natural resources that private individuals and companies do own. Are they fair game for nationalization, by your standards?
For example, consider the many diamond mines in Africa owned by DeBeers. There’s a natural resource just sitting there in the ground, right? So if an African government attempted to nationalize privately owned diamond mines, that wouldn’t be “socialist”, right?
I gotta lotta respect for you personally, John, and if you can look me in the eye and tell me that you personally would not consider any such claims to state ownership of natural resources to be a form of socialism, I’ll believe you. But I don’t believe for a minute that you could find a self-proclaimed conservative who’d agree with you about that.
I’ve been on this board for eight years and I have ALWAYS lumped you in with the conservatives. I consider you a particularly and peculiarly reasonable example of that contingent, but you are definitely on the right-wing side of my personal “SDMB Political Affiliation Chart”.
OK. I guess I’ll have to mark my CA ballot “yes” on prop 8 and vote for McCain. I was planning to vote no on 8, and vote for Obama. Glad you point that out for me!
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I was a conservative. It would still be absurd for **Kimstu **to call me out for things that she claims conservatives “always” say. I usually expect a more reasoned argument from her, not a post full of straw and some attempt to lump me in with “conservatives” as if that proves anything.
Well, sorry, John. I think you have to admit, though, that conservatives in general are pretty uncomfortable with the idea of the state having a right to nationalize natural resources or to treat them as collective property.
It is pretty funny hearing McCain campaign spokespeople cluck and mutter about Obama’s scary “socialism” while delicately ignoring the fat collective-property checks Governor Palin sends out to her constituents. And the thought of conservatives trying to argue that heavens no!, there’s nothing socialist about Alaskan state ownership of oil! just really tickled me.
That’s not even the whole story. Seems Alaska expects the rest of the Lower 48 to share their wealth with them. Alaska is a blood sucker on the teat of America!
(And Arizona’s not that much better.)
Federal Dollars Received
State Per Dollar of Taxes Paid Rank
**Alaska** **$1.84** **3**
**Arizona** **$1.19** **21**
Delaware $0.77 44
Illinois $0.75 45
Yeah, that’s not “spreading the wealth around”. :rolleyes: I can’t wait until this woman is out of my sight.
Oh yeah, cite.
Why? If an oil company wanted to drill on your land, they would pay you a royalty. If you and I owned the land, they would pay us a royalty. If the citizens of the state own the land, they pay those citizens a royalty.
You’re right in that any progressive tax rate is somewhat redistributive and somewhat socialistic. But Obama’s plan is more progressive and therefore more redistributive and more socialistic. But the tax rates alone don’t tell the whole story. Combine his more progressive rate structure with the checks he wants to send people and you have a much more socialistic plan than McCain. For the record, I view the tax “rebates” that Bush has authorized as similarly redistributive and socialistic.
Any tax at all is redistributive. Even a truly flat tax (ie. say $1000 per person, a percent tax is obviously redistributive) would be, because it would be impossible, and totally pointless, to give $1000 in value back to everyone. It’s kind of the point of taxes…
So why does the US go from capitalist to socialist if you raise the top tax rate a few percent?
If your point is that he’s, uh, more to the left of McCain, well duh. Kind of a useless point to make.
That’s true, I guess. But it’s one thing when the revenues are spent on things like roads and bridges and national defense. Once you move away from that and start having programs for the destitute, you are correct. But once you start handing out checks to individuals—beyond those truly destitute—you’re much further into the socialist camp. You’re using the redistribution of wealth to engineer society to fit a particular definition of “more fair”. When you get the funds to do any of this from a progressive tax the more socialistic it is. The more progressive, the more socialistic.
