What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
433 Comments
- paintgrl, on 10/28/2008, -23/+121Exactly!
FTA: Bottom line: the federal government is now one of the largest owners of bank equity out there.
So please -- stop telling me that the statement "spread the wealth around" is a dangerous statement. The Federal Government -- under a plan proposed by a Republican Treasury Secretary -- is already making investments in the means of production. This is radical socialism in a far more extreme manner.
Economy - Babealoo, on 10/28/2008, -12/+96Political and social constructs overlap. It's dangerous and misleading to quote a line or two from one philosophy and label anyone who agrees with the quote as a believer in all aspects of the philosophy. I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal. I believe that we should use our country's resources with profound respect and accountability. I also believed that a truly functional society requires that people take care of each other. All taxes spread the wealth around. The current administration did a massive redistribution by raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the wealthy, which contributed to the economic mess we're in. The "trickle down theory" has failed twice, spectacularly. The middle class is worse off by far now than 8 years ago. Obama's tax plan is breathtakingly simple: the wealthy will pay an additional 3% on taxable income over $250,000. (No change for taxable income below $250K.) The middle class will receive a necessary tax break with which to regain their financial footing. I aspire to be among the wealthy someday. I will not quibble about paying more if I ever break through that $250K level. I want to live in a society that values the health and fiscal well-being of all citizens.
- pennsykid2000, on 10/28/2008, -9/+83From the New Yorker:
For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama “Barack the Wealth Spreader,” seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government’s activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year’s check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it (“collectively,” no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397938/ - DangerCollie, on 10/28/2008, -12/+62Yeah, no kidding. What we have now is socialism for the rich.
Classic Republican tactic of attacking the opposition on the very points they're the weakest. - Ganpachi, on 10/28/2008, -12/+48Okay, now the HuffPo has gone too far! How dare they insult socialism like that!!!!
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -12/+43Pretty much anytime the GOP calls someone a name you can be sure they are what they are calling someone else.
- GhostInAShell, on 10/29/2008, -8/+38They're ALL socialists.
EVERYONE.
Obama AND McCain.
Almost EVERY policy is socialist to some degree.
Don't forget Obama voted for the Bailout as well
and Nationalized Healthcare is a whole other issue...not to mention the sharp income tax increase after $250,000. and cuts for all below... - inactive, on 10/28/2008, -35/+62You're close, but you're making the same mistake as the McSame side in reverse. They BOTH voted for the socialist bailout because they're BOTH socialists, ok? Is it that hard to accept? This is the usual "choice" the two "major" parties serve -- ***** sandwich of tax and spend welfare-state or giant douche of borrow and spend warfare-state.
- jeffiek, on 10/29/2008, -2/+25The Republican party SAYS it is for limited government. That is what politicians ( called a "party" in groups ) do. They SAY what people want to hear in order to get elected.
Then they do what they damn well please. Once in the establishment, they are well protected. The re-election rate is 95% or better. The struggle between parties is basically over those few positions that get vacated due to death, retirement, or imprisonment. On rare occasions a few seats a lost due to public outrage. Hey, they have to throw a bone to the public every now and then.
The Democrats do the same. - Dumbledorito, on 10/29/2008, -1/+22Believe it or not, I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law, but I thought the marriage of corporate and governmental power was "facism," in the classical sense.
"Socialism" would imply more of a social benefit structure for the masses which doesn't appear to augmented in the slightest since the population isn't the beneficiary of the bailout money. - vacuum2440, on 10/29/2008, -8/+26am I the only one who finds it kind of funny how scared Americans are of socialism?
- tacobueno, on 10/29/2008, -0/+18Actual conservatives are for limited government, don't confuse republicans with conservatives. Contrary to public belief they are not the same....
- cyberdork, on 10/28/2008, -10/+24And don't forget it's the GOP which just loves to shuffle billions and billions of dollars to the defense industry. Basically a gigantic part of the US economy is held artificially alive with taxpayer money. Now if that's not socialist then I don't know what is.
Even the most socialist democracies in Europe have a more open and free economy that the US. - lululiu, on 10/29/2008, -9/+23McCain's campaign has lost absolutely all shreds of its respectability. The election needs to happen already, this is getting so dull.
- tomarocco, on 10/29/2008, -3/+15What rock did you crawl out from under?
- Edwards60, on 10/28/2008, -10/+21I have notice through out this campaign; everything the Republican Party accuse Obama?Biden, of wrong doing it always they are the guilty ones. This article did not surprise me; I hope others out there have also noticed it too.
- Mecevans, on 10/29/2008, -13/+24whats wrong with a little socialism?
- dbz253, on 10/29/2008, -14/+25obama is a socialist
mccain is a fascist - booksnmore4you, on 10/29/2008, -2/+12Obama says the bigger gov and small gov dichotomy misses the point and that his goal is BETTER and SMARTER government.
So what exactly is your point??? - uncajoe, on 10/29/2008, -4/+14"And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. … It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans." ~ Sarah Palin
Source: Letter from Alaska | The State of Sarah Palin | The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/0809 ... - aitoaster, on 10/29/2008, -4/+14In Psych terms its called 'projection'.
Republicans do it all the time.
Just like when they go around on gay witchhunts, you can bet the people doing the hunting are well....you get the idea. - ru7hl3ss, on 10/29/2008, -3/+13He has been posting the same message in every article... just bury and move on.
- Achaean, on 10/29/2008, -5/+15Well said, my friend.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -3/+13So handing the checks to irresponsible bankers is somehow better? Please. The cluelessness here is thick enough to resemble a bad fart in a small elevator. Face it, they're both socialists.
- shig, on 10/29/2008, -7/+17Republicans say something borderline retarded, and Democrats go full retard.
- Stryder81, on 10/29/2008, -4/+14Incorrect sorry.
Republicans = Fascists... What they did with Banks and so forth is Corporitisim not Socialism, big difference.
Democrats = Socialists/Communists = Even by their own stances since the beginning of the democratic party. Some haven't been as extreme but same principals. - hankthedwarf, on 10/29/2008, -5/+14"republicans - limited government."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
R U SRS?!
Seriously. Are you? - inactive, on 10/29/2008, -1/+10Damn, I forgot to put /s again!
- MakanGuru, on 10/29/2008, -4/+13WTF enough with the socialist crap already
- BotchaMcCoola, on 10/29/2008, -6/+15McCain and Palin - Manure Spreaders. It may work though like on the farm. The country will start growing again if Obama is elected.
- sugarazor, on 10/29/2008, -3/+12"Most left" in US Congress = still right of center.
- inactive, on 10/29/2008, -0/+9vampirism?
- shedourskin, on 10/29/2008, -2/+11No mention that 2/3 of the yea votes for the "rescue" plan were from democrats. And it's always reassuring when someone defends their stance not on merit, but by claiming their opponent's is worse. Damn that Huffington Post.
- oilcan, on 10/29/2008, -2/+10how can you still swallow this repub=limited government ***** after everything that has happened...
- zenerdiode, on 10/29/2008, -8/+16I dunno.
Socialist policies and gov branches born from socialist ideas such as: Social Security; FDIC; SEC and; FEMA aren't so bad. People need to read their history books and understand how much of a ***** the US (to anybody below the upper class) before the rise of FDR, the biggest socialist in the history of the US Presidency. Corporations ran everything and power and money rested in the hands of a few. Socialist ideals such as labor unions evened the playing field. People, especially libertarians like Greenspan, love to spew the virtues of the "free market" and capitalism and how the market can correct all social ills. But how free is the market when, as evident by recent events, the people at the top of the pyramid don't play by the rules, lie, cheat, and steal to prevent redistribution of wealth that others have earned?
I don't understand America's hatred of socialism when the reality is we're a socialist democracy. We've become such a powerful country because great men such as FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Goldwater walked the fine line between freeing the economy and PROTECTING the people. Since the Reagan administration, president after president have been going for the easy buck and FORGETTING the people. I guess it took a 40% drop of the Dow in one year to remind some politicians that they work for us, not the corporations and the so-called "free" market. - oldgal, on 10/29/2008, -0/+8If democrats do it it is called welfare, if republicans do it it is called subsidies. Spreading wealth around is what governments do. It would be much healthier to drop the stupid labels and just be pragmatic.
- ReeferChiefer42, on 10/29/2008, -8/+16Unfortunately you'll never get Republicans to admit to their hypocrisy. They'll just keep spewing their hate and giving reasons (lies and slander) why you shouldn't vote for Obama, while providing no reasons as to why you should vote for McCain. Shining light on things like this is, however, very good for gaining undecided voters.
- oilcan, on 10/29/2008, -4/+12you sir, should be dugg through the roof.
- dieboldcracy, on 10/29/2008, -1/+9Exactly, they're BOTH socialists. Because the world bankers/FED are taking over and they've had that plan all along. Since 1908. They keep us fighting amongst ourselves with this false left/right paradigm. It is also why Obama isn't gonna change *****, except for giving us a lot more respect and credibility in the world community because of his demeanor and intelligence.
- lettruthout, on 10/29/2008, -2/+10The process seems to be:
project, drama, deny. - waspbr, on 10/29/2008, -4/+11Socialism is not the same thing as communism. Socialism is alive in well in many european countries that hold quality and standards of living higher then the US and are even more democratic and free.
It noticeable that Americans have been exposed to similar propaganda against socialism, made to associate anything to do with socialism with loss of freedom and authoritarian states. Socialism does not have to encompass the whole of the economy however some sectors of the economy may adopt socialist policies in order to benefit the whole of society and not just the top 1-2 % that hold 20% of the country's wealth.
The socialism phobia is based on nothing but propaganda from the cold war. - seltaeb4, on 10/29/2008, -0/+7You mean... toe-tappin' wide stancers?
- zenbud, on 10/28/2008, -17/+24Yeah, but the Honorable Senator Obama doesn't hand out 'spread the wealth' checks to his state . . . Palin does from those big bad oil companies who are paying for her and grandpa's campaign. That is socialist.
- acofrin, on 10/29/2008, -1/+8Great article. As Nixon said, "We're all Keynesians now." Reps-Dems are the same bag.
Problems by politicians leads to solutions by politicians. - notnoisy, on 10/29/2008, -4/+11This always makes me wonder what exactly some people put in the word "socialist". It's all negative and we're suddenly talking about Stalin, Mao, Marxism, and so on.
Yet, the most successful and best to live in countries of the world are socialist countries, such as the nordic countries and other European countries.
I'm from Norway. We're a socialist country. We're safe, have more freedom than most (including the americans), we're rich, educated. We're smiling. What's wrong with that? - gospe1337, on 10/29/2008, -2/+9Socialism is not necessary about redistribution/reallocation of money. The main focus of the idea is means of production (i.e. industry) and ownership. Only in a broader sense is payment for labor (or lack there of) brought into the equation. There as many flavors of socialism as there are flavors of Democracies. The notion that a socialist is in opposition to a notion of a democratic-republic (i.e. USSR) is false. Unfortunately, the cruelties of the former USSR, China, Cuba, etc are all tethered to the notion of anything remotely non-capitalistic.
I can understand legitimate concerns about Obama's tax credit program, concerns on how he will pay for his programs, and the metrics of his various analysis of "working" and "non-working" social programs. What I do not understand, though, is why these points cannot be expressed without calling him a socialist, a terrorist, or anything of the like. - inactive, on 10/29/2008, -1/+8in fact, you can use it as a guide to see what they're planning behind the scenes. They're engaged in massive voter fraud, so quick, stir up fake ***** about ACORN. they want to raid the federal coffers for their friends, oooh, that darn Obama's a socialist ain't he?
- juliehardman, on 10/29/2008, -3/+10Fill out the form to stop social security from being deducted from your paychecks, stop sending your kids to school, and never donate to the United Way or the Red Cross again. Those are all social programs and we the people would like you to stop participating so you can rely on yourself.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 447 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is