A spade *is* a spade. And

A spade *is* a spade. And there's no real difference between the use of "socialist" now, versus "commie" back in the 80s, or "nazi sympathizer" in the 40s. I can't think of a major Democratic candidate who hasn't been accused of being a socialist - hell, I think most of the Republicans have, too. I ignore it because it's a meaningless, valueless attack.

Is Obama in favor of "the movement of wealth from those that make it to those that don't" (your words)?
Well, not exactly. He has called for greater taxes to be paid by people with more money - I expect you're familiar with the basic concepts of progressive taxation, so I won't beat that into the ground. But that is, in fact "spreading the wealth around". Granted not everyone likes progressive taxes, but they do work, and calling it socialism is rather a stretch.

Of course, in point of fact, he's not calling for the curve to be made all that much steeper:
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in
the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have
received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal
responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact,
dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. - From Obama's tax plan.

Of course, this isn't about the tax plans. I can see arguments that Obama or McCain might have a better idea of what to do with the economy. Obviously I have my preferences, but regardless.
What I object to is the notion that either candidate could be called "socialist". While it hasn't been stated directly, there is an implied dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. In truth, economy is one of the more complex and abstract aspects of public policy, and the various labels which might be applied are really at best loose indicators. Any given policy must be evaluated on its own merits, not based on a silly straw man label.

Beyond which, the label of "socialist" when applied to a politician covers more than simple economics. I can't prove Barack Obama isn't a socialist - but then, I can't prove that McCain isn't, either. However, what I have yet to see is any evidence that either candidate *is* a socialist, either. the best I can see is the tenuous connection that he appears to be generally in favor of equality and social progress.

In terms of the social issues... it's funny, really. You completely miss my point there.
(By the way, your links seriously borked my browser - some of the hosts seem... less than trustworthy)
I'm not referring to secondhand sources here. Let's go straight to the source.
"Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states."

You're right, I'm pretty sure we're not going to see eye-to-eye here.
You likely see this as a states' rights issue. To those in my community, it's a bit more important.

I'm less than sanguine about the states' ability to protect rights
Abortion and Gay marriage deserve special attention here. To me, these issues appear to come up as a result of a particular religious sect wishing to enforce its morality on others - like myself - who do not even vaguely share those beliefs. I do not trust in the states to assure that this does not happen - demonstrably they have failed in the past. Leaving such important matters to the states opens the gates for serious injustices to happen, for people who hate us, to put legal stamp to their misdeeds and gain the ability to directly impose their religious beliefs on us. A president who would make that possible is as culpable as one who would actively support it.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options