How to know if you are a Socialist

If you or your candidate supported the $700b bailout that takes our hard-earned tax dollars and redistributes it to the banks, who now horde the money they have received, you may be a socialist.

If your candidate redistributed money to all Alaskans from money received through a windfall profit tax of the oil companies, you may be a socialist.

If you have ever checked out a book from a library, you may be a socialist.

If you have ever called the police or were grateful for the service they provide, you may be a socialist.

If you ever needed the service of a firefighter, you may be a socialist.

If you collect Social Security, you may be a socialist.

If you are covered by Medicare, you may be a socialist.

If you or your children have ever attended public school, you may be a socialist.

If you use public sewer and water services, you may be a socialist

If you drive to work on a paved road or have ever crossed a bridge, you may be a socialist.

If you believe the lies thrown out by the GOP and John McCain that Barack Obama is a socialist, you may be too dumb to vote.

{A very special hat tip to Cats r Flyfishn at Pennsylvania for Change for providing some of the bullets.}

 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

 

You know, I am totally disgusted with this innuendo and constant attempts to scare the electorate to vote a certain way.  Let’s put this right out there.  Barack Obama is not a socialist or Marxist and is not, in any way, shape or form, advocating for socialism.

I think the problem is that many people are unaware of what socialism is.  No one is advocating a “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.* 

I haven’t heard any reference to the United States moving to “a system of society or group living in which there is no private property” or one “in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”*

Now the third definition would be the closest to what you all fear.  “A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”*

If you buy into this definition, I would have to point out that women receive 70 cents for every dollar as compared to men.  That is an “unequal distribution of … pay according to work done.”  Right? 

If you do the exact same job as a co-worker, the likelihood of both of you receiving the exact same pay is very slim.

What about this quote?  “Here’s what I really believe:  That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.” 

The interesting point is that this was said by none other than John McCain.

Isn’t that what the Republicans are accusing Obama of suggesting?   Slightly increasing the taxes on the wealthy and cutting it for those earning under $200,000? 

Political candidates, especially when they are trailing in the polls, often resort to fear in order to get you to switch your vote. How pathetic are we as an electorate if we are still unable to see through this desperate charade in the 21st century.

 

Source:  * http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

 

Advertisements

8 responses to “How to know if you are a Socialist

  1. A good read. Thanks!

  2. good point:
    after both republicans and democrats are socialists because of this stupid bailout . However there is a huge difference: Obama is ideological socialist who wants to spread wealth around for the sake of fairness . GOP do their stupid socialists statements and moves from economical reasons ( still stupid) However it is a big difference when you ideologically believe in fairness of taking from others and spreading around. This is what Obama does and this is what none of GOP wants.

  3. Campaign promises often wilt after the election. Tax-cut promises are a frequent casualty.

    By backtracking on tax-cut pledges even before the election, Barack Obama threatens to break Bill Clinton’s speed record. It wasn’t until a week before his first inauguration that Clinton openly reneged on his promise to cut taxes for the middle class.

    There’s another similarity. Candidate Clinton and Candidate Obama both promised to raise taxes, too, but only on “the wealthy.” And both proceeded to widen the definition of “wealthy” to encompass more and more taxpayers.

    During his campaign, Clinton said, “The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year.” After the election, he proceeded to raise taxes across-the-board.

    Less than a month into his presidency, the Washington Post headlined, “Clinton Asks Middle Class to Pay Higher Taxes; President Issues `Call to Arms’ To Restore Economic Vitality.” After Clinton’s Jan. 14, 1993, news conference, the Post wrote that Clinton “complained that it was only the press, not voters, who considered that issue [tax cuts] important.”

    (Column continues below)

    At first, Clinton maintained that only those earning over $100,000 would pay more under his revised tax plan. But The Heritage Foundation noted it would hit far more broadly, raising taxes for individuals making $25,000 and couples making $32,000. The Los Angeles Times headline echoed that finding: “Clinton Threshold on Tax Bite Dips to $30,000 Incomes.”

    Fast forward to now. Even before the election, Obama is downsizing his tax promises. First he advertised that nobody would pay higher taxes unless they earned over $250,000 a year. Now his TV ads say the threshold is $200,000. And in campaign remarks in Pennsylvania, running mate Joe Biden lowered it again, to $150,000.

    It all parallels the gradual tax plan changes Bill Clinton started making shortly before his election. Then, after his election, the gradual changes turned into dramatic transformation.

    As the New York Times noted in February 1993, “… beginning about a month before Election Day, Mr. Clinton took care to say he was not making a read-my-lips pledge on middle-class taxes. He was making the more narrow pledge that he would not raise taxes to pay for his new spending programs. But the overall thrust of what he promised ran in the opposite direction.”

    On Feb. 15, 1993, just weeks after he was inaugurated, Clinton completed the course change in a national TV address, telling the nation, “I’ve worked harder than I’ve ever worked in my life to meet that goal. But I can’t.”

    His excuse was two-fold. First, he “hadn’t realized” just how bad the deficit was. Second, he believed the people wanted the new spending he had proposed during his campaign.

    Clinton sought to defuse the political damage by promising to hit “the wealthy” harder. His Feb. 6, 1993, radio address told the nation he would “get rid of windfalls for the wealthy before I ask any of the rest of the American people to make a contribution,” and that, “We’re going to ask the most from those who have got the most and gave the least during the past dozen years.”

    Clinton blamed Washington politicians – prior presidents in particular – for supposedly concealing just how bad the federal deficit was, thereby justifying his reneging on his campaign promises.

    In 2008, our deficit is far worse and Obama’s spending pledges are far greater than Clinton’s. Only someone who has been locked in a cave is unaware that this year’s deficit spending is approaching a trillion dollars.

    This is no proof that Obama will renege, Clinton-style. But his recent adjustments in describing whose taxes will go up certainly are not reassuring.

    Obama also is using a looser definition of wealth than Clinton did. The $200,000 threshold that Clinton applied in 1992 equates to $311,000 today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obama’s most-recent $200,000 threshold is the same as a $128,255 income would have been in 1992.

    The week before Bill Clinton was inaugurated, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., observed, “This week has been rather the clatter of campaign promises being tossed out the window.”

    Those who fear that this year’s campaign promises will also be thrown out the window should keep their eyes wide open and be ready to dodge whatever might fall on their heads

  4. 2008 voter,
    Boy have you fallen for the Fox News / Rush Limbaugh / GOP diatribe. The tax policies suggested by Obama are the same as we had under Clinton when most of us were doing well.
    Don’t kid yourself, John McCain believes as Obama does and has said as much. (Read the quote in this post)
    Sarah Palin even taxed corporations (oil companies) and redistributed the money to Alaskans.
    It is exactly the same thing. I bet you that you only realized this in the last couple of weeks when the GOP decided to use this fear tactic.
    Most of the GOP wants to take YOUR money and give it to the weathly / corporations through tax breaks for them. Open your eyes.

    I bet you still don’t know anything about Obama because you are being told that you do not know anything about him even though he has been running for president for 20 months and if you search the responsible sites you will find the facts. It’s just easier to listen to Rush.

    Spend a little time on factcheck.org for starters.
    For the facts on the socialism claim, you may wish to read: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/826/

  5. sfokc6125,
    I appreciate the comments. This really doesn’t address the bogus socialist charges by the GOP.
    I did notice that change in the threshold during the ad.
    The fact is, someone is going to have to pay for this bogus bailout. And I’m sure the numbers will change as the conditions continue to change, not to mention since all of this will have to be approved by Congress, it will be interesting to see what this will look like at the end of the day.

  6. ngoldfarb,

    No question, Ayers is a real scum. But your ties to Obama are ridiculous.

    Here are the fact, just facts and only facts about their connection:
    They both served on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (as you mention in your post) – named for Conservative and friend of Ronald Reagan, Walter Annenberg. Your facts don’t add up especially if you look at the article from factcheck – which you reference.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

    Here is more from PolitiFact: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/

    The bogus Obama – Ayers connection has been debunked repeatedly since the Democratic Primaries when it first came up.

  7. my2bucks,

    Between you and Cats r Flyfishen…you gave me my next post. As I mentioned on Cats site, it’s wonderful to be on the same team as such intelligent folks!

    We can win this election cycle!

    I’m going to include some of the information you have on this post….crediting it, of course, to both you and Cats.

    Kindest Regards,

    Michelle