Posted on 10/21/2008 6:38:30 PM PDT by Libloather
Obama's tax plan doesn't qualify as socialism, analyst says
By DAVID LIGHTMAN AND WILLIAM DOUGLAS
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tue, Oct. 21, 2008
ST. CHARLES, Mo. --"Make no mistake," Republican activist John Hancock told a John McCain rally in this St. Louis suburb, "this campaign is a referendum on socialism."
Republicans have been pounding that theme in recent days, even though Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama hardly fits the classic definition of a socialist.
Critics point to Obama's plan to raise the top two tax rates on the wealthy as clear evidence of his socialist bent. However, Len Burman, the director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, said that while Obama "would make the tax system more progressive overall, it would not be a radical shift."
It wouldn't qualify as socialism.
"The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist," said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. "We've had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it."
Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America's democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It's a form of sharing the wealth.
Government intervenes in U.S. "free markets" all the time. The deduction that homeowners get for mortgage interest is one form, for it subsidizes housing. The government contracts that sustain the great U.S. weapons makers, such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, are another.
For that matter, President Bush and a lot of other Republicans, including McCain, backed a massive federal government rescue of ailing financial institutions this fall, one that's committed well more than $1 trillion so far to "private" banks, even taking partial ownership of the nine biggest.
Socialism has proved more popular in Europe, including in Great Britain, France, and Italy. In the United States, the term traditionally has been closely associated with communism, and thus claiming the socialist mantle has been political poison. Since World War II and the Cold War, American political candidates who advocate pure socialism rarely have gotten very far. Most notably, Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont was first elected to Congress in 1990 as a socialist, and remains one.
The new round of socialism claims was triggered by Obama's comments last week to "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher in Toledo, Ohio.
Wurzelbacher told Obama that he hoped someday to buy a plumbing business and asked, "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"
Key Bush administration tax cuts are due to expire Jan. 1, 2011. Obama wants to end breaks for most individuals who earn more than $200,000 and families that make more than $250,000; McCain does not. Obama's position would restore the top rates to where they were under President Clinton, when the economy boomed.
"It's not that I want to punish your success," the Illinois senator told Wurzelbacher. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success, too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Republicans pounced, and haven't stopped.
"You see," McCain said in his radio address Saturday, "he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it.
"Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism, and a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, spreading the wealth around is a familiar idea from the American left."
It was Bush and McCain - who claimed a central role in the drama - who pushed a trillion-dollar government plan to save ailing financial institutions, however.
"If we're moving toward socialism," Beck said, "it's a bipartisan event."
One of the major challenges that the next president faces, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman and Obama backer Paul Volcker said Tuesday, is "how do we reprivatize institutions" that have been "socialized" by the Bush administration?
Many conservatives were uneasy about the bank bailout, but they argue that it's important to remember that "George Bush is not on the ballot," said Brent Littlefield of the American Conservative Union.
He pointed to Obama's tax ideas.
"It's a philosophical concept (Obama) has, and he made it clear when, unprompted, he talked about spreading the wealth around," Littlefield said.
Conservatives often charge that Democrats are engaging in "class warfare" when they want to raise tax rates on the rich - McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, have used the phrase against Obama - but they rarely find such fault when tax cuts benefit the wealthy class disproportionately.
For all that, the "socialist" charge against Obama sticks with some voters.
In Ohio, Sara Cannorozzi, who works for a Springfield promotional products business, explained that while her income is nowhere near the amount that would trigger a tax increase, she hopes it will be someday.
"Obama wants to talk about giving pieces of the pie to everyone, but he never wants to talk about growing the pie," she said. "I don't want to share my pie. If I earn it, I want to keep as much as I can."
Reid, Pelosi & Hussein Obomber with their hands on the tax code wouldn't produce anything 'radical'? Think again.
Well, that settles it for me. NOT!
Show me one poor person that ever provided a job, or any substantial economic benefit for that matter.
So we going direct to communism then I guess.
Or to use Obama’s favorite code word for communism, collectivism.
We have Ayers admitting he is a Marxist, so what’s with all those Marxist friends Obama has.
at what point does an ‘analyst’ from the Tax Policy Center constitute ‘independent’????
The Tax Policy Centers own website lists them as being affiliated with the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute. So which one of those is ‘independent’???
How obtuse can anyone be? Of course Democrats in general and Obama in particular are socialists. It’s never been up for debate, much like the fact that Obama supports infanticide has never been a question.
"The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist," said Paul Beck
From one of my earlier posts:
I did a search to see if I could find a difinative answer which relates to the difference between Marksism, Communism and Socialism. One of the resulto of that search is written below. I take no credit for authoring any part. So that you can check on the accuracy of my copy, I have included the following links.
Source: Glenn Blaylock
After you have read the submital I think you also will henceforth know both of these cretans as Socialists.
Pure Marxism had three main characteristics. First of all, there was to be no government, no central controlling body allocating resources. If something needed doing then some person or group of people would just do it for the good of all. Second there was to be no private ownership of anything. All things were to be held in common. If you needed something you would just take it. ("From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.") Finally, there would be no religion. Religion was created by the rich and the powerful to keep the lower classes down by pacifying them with the promise of a better existence in the fictional next life if they accepted their lot in this life. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.")
Marxism appeals to an innate sense of fairness in people. Nobody has more than anyone else. Everyone works for the good of everyone else. The problem was that Marx could not describe a mechanism by which we get to his utopian society beyond the masses violently overthrowing their oppressors nor did he really understand human nature.
Various attempts to get to this Marxist ideal have been made over the decades. These usually start with the creation of a socialist government. People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form. The government owns everything and directs the allocation of all resources. Since the people own nothing they theoretically should learn to do everything for the good of the whole. Eventually, when the people have been properly trained, the government is disbanded and the Marxist utopia is achieved.
The problem is that human nature gets in the way. The people in power grow to like having the power. So, they start do things to ensure that they stay in power. ("Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Additionally, there is a very broad lazy streak that runs through much of humanity. People only do as much work as they have to in order to survive. If the government is going to take from Joe and give it to me, then why should I work for a living. Joe then sees his industry going to support me, a lazy bum who doesn't contribute anything myself, and thinks why should I bother. This mentality means that the people never reach a state where the government, even if it were inclined to do so, can step aside. So, the corruption just continues to fester.
With wages stagnating, a tax cut puts more money in folks hands. In a consumer driven society, it helps when consumers actually have money to spend. Trickle down works, but when wages start to stagnate, it starts to fall apart.
This is the second pro-BO piece posted today written by that Lightman hack.
So the state controlling economic production through taxation regulation and litigation don't count? BS the state gets the cream off the top without the responsibility. The definition is obsolete. Most lefties will not admit that our public school system is socialistic when government does own the means of production. Most do not think of the ISD as a government entity but it most certainly is and will take your property by force and deadly force if necessary if taxes aren't paid on time.
No matter how they want to disguise it, no matter what they call it, the fact is they want to take money from hard working Americans and give it to the Americans that sit around and do nothing. Sell that to the American people.
Let’s see:
His tax plan is a little bit of socialism.
His health care plan is w helluva lot of socialism.
His education plan is more socialism still.
His energy plan is pure socialism.
His “stimulus’ plan is socialism.
His history of gun grabbing is socialism.
His pro-infanticide plans are evil communism worthy of Mao.
His plan to ‘bailout’ the auto industry is socialism.
His minions he unleashed to commit vote fraud is thugocracy.
His minions he unleashed to intimidate those who stand against him is brownshirtism.
His plans to install the “fairness doctrine” is communism.
His cozy relationships with Rezko and the Chicago mobsters at the expense of the peasantry is criminal.
His plans for the environment and global warming are world socialism.
His plans to create a world master banking system is communism.
His plans to cut of funding for the troop and their mission is rank leftism.
His statements that he will “change the world” is utopianism.
His relationships with Rev. Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Rev. James Meeks, Khalid al-Mansour, Frank Marshall Davis, and Bill Ayers is anti-American radicalism and/or marxism.
His memebership and participation with the New Party is pure socialism.
His days as a fraudulent ‘community organizer’ was socialism.
His first book (co-written by Bill Ayers) is a socialism and racism stew.
His desire for gay marriage and letting open gays into the military is radical social engineering.
His plans to sit down with Castro, Chavez, and co. is globalism at its worst.
His relationship with Code Pink is anti-war radicalism.
His endorsments by the Black Panthers, the Communist Party USA, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, Hamas, the Socialist Party, Nancy Pelosi, and Fidel Castro is because he is a socialist.
His comments about bitter clingers to guns and religion is elitism.
His constant lying is due to a pathological.
His plans for Amnesty and drivers licenses for illegals against the will of the people is dictatorship.
His plans for a ‘windfall tax’ on oil companies is pure socialism.
What am I missing?
And I suppose when the Democrat triumvirate rolls back the Bush tax cuts next year, it isn’t going to be viewed as a tax increase on the Middle Class either...
Two words: NEW PARTY
Once again, acamedia and practioneers don't see eye to eye. Hey Dr. Beck, Please go talk to Joe the Plumber!
"We've had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it."
So, is the man saying that the progressive tax system is a gimmick? You sure can't be "bought into" something legitimate, can you?
Was that right off the top of your head? Dang...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.