Obama's "redistribution of wealth"

[Chilli Dipper]

the freer the market, the freer the people. We are already a halfways socialist country. Progressive income tax, social security, wall street bailout, etc etc.

Not true. Capitalism in its purest, most unregulated form has the endgame of a select few wield controlling power over all wealth and resources. It certainly does not make the people freer. On the other hand, socialism in its purest, most regulated form has the endgame of either the government wielding controlling power over all wealth and resources, or the public holding a collective power which is only achieved by suppressing all possible distinctions of class. Again, it the people do not benefit from becoming freer.

The system of representative government is a constant balancing act, an experiment in maintaining a safe equilibrium between these two extremes. Libertarians anchor the capitalist side of the tightrope; various socialist parties anchor the other. Both sides offer an appealing position, but as the load of the state starts shifting too far towards one end of the rope, its footing becomes more and more unstable. Ayn Rand may provide a utopian argument for pure capitalism, and Karl Marx may provide a utopian argument for pure socialism, but those arguments are only representative of the dreams that can only exist in the mind of an ideologue. The imperfections of society and human nature guarantee that those worlds will always remain just a theory.

[jmoc]

Ayn Rand may provide a utopian argument for pure capitalism, and Karl Marx may provide a utopian argument for pure socialism, but those arguments are only representative of the dreams that can only exist in the mind of an ideologue. The imperfections of society and human nature guarantee that those worlds will always remain just a theory.

Well said.... jmoc

[pjsnyc]

Not true. Capitalism in its purest, most unregulated form has the endgame of a select few wield controlling power over all wealth and resources. It certainly does not make the people freer. On the other hand, socialism in its purest, most regulated form has the endgame of either the government wielding controlling power over all wealth and resources, or the public holding a collective power which is only achieved by suppressing all possible distinctions of class. Again, it the people do not benefit from becoming freer.

BINGO! Or to put it a little easier for everyone - vote for the lesser of two evils.

[immts007]

I'll join the Chorus, Chili Dipper. That was a really excellent post.

[ERC7.5]

Not true. Capitalism in its purest, most unregulated form has the endgame of a select few wield controlling power over all wealth and resources. It certainly does not make the people freer. On the other hand, socialism in its purest, most regulated form has the endgame of either the government wielding controlling power over all wealth and resources, or the public holding a collective power which is only achieved by suppressing all possible distinctions of class. Again, it the people do not benefit from becoming freer.

Great post but is there any example where this idea has been successful? The left and mainstream media doesn't seem to be touching on this subject and all I hear out of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity is that is doom and gloom. Russia, Cuba, etc...

By this idea....I mean the concept of Socialism.

[NM Golf]

I just a dumb Canuck looking at this thread and got quite a few snickers. As an outsider watching the election fun from a distance (notwithstanding the fact that my wife is an American and has a big interest in this stuff), I love the lies, slander, mudslinging, slime, etc. that is going on, esp. in the media (the New York Times is so unbiased that it makes Pravda read like a Dr. Seuss book and the LA Times is Democrat-leaning but bashes Nancy Pelosi over the head occasionally). I would love to see Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity in a steel cage match, but I digress.

My Aunt lives in Detroit and even though is a bleeding heart liberal, she doesn't want Obama. She is a nurse so obviously sees the state of healthcare in the US. She warns though that any step toward universal heathcare will cause great harm. She says that healthcare in Canada is a joke. Extremely long waits to see specialists and ridiculous appointment times for procedures. She has told me that many of the better off Canadians get health insurance and find medical care in the US to avoid the mess north of the border. What scares me the most is that we are going straight into a period of at least 2-4 years where a very liberal Congress is going to be working basically unchecked by a very liberal President and vice versa. I am a Republican and my views are swayed to the right, but moderately so. I do not buy in with the Religious right on abortion and stem cell and I have a couple of other areas where I sit the fence as well. I fear with only a liberal view coming out of Washington we will weaken as a country. Liberal Democrats have proven time and time again that they will not be tough in certain areas like homeland defense and foreign policy. I fear diplomacy as our enemies do not partake in such ways. A extremist muslim sees no need to talk things out. They want to take over the world and if left unchecked due to liberals tying the hands of those trying to protect our country, they will continue to grow stronger and stronger like they did under the Clinton Administration. The status of the economy concerns me of course but as I have seen ups and downs I believe we will pull through this like we always do whether a Republican or a democrat is at the helm. Basically I see the upcoming shift way to the left not as a threat to my republican views but as a threat to my moderate views. Hopefully in a couple of years people will realize that blaming Bush for all that was wrong with the world was little more that a liberal campaign trick and will see that an all liberal Washington is no better. Hopefully......

[ERC7.5]

... Hopefully in a couple of years people will realize that blaming Bush for all that was wrong with the world was little more that a liberal campaign trick and will see that an all liberal Washington is no better. Hopefully......

Hopefully we won't have to go this route. Hopefully....

[Chilli Dipper]

My Aunt lives in Detroit and even though is a bleeding heart liberal, she doesn't want Obama. She is a nurse so obviously sees the state of healthcare in the US. She warns though that any step toward universal heathcare will cause great harm. She says that healthcare in Canada is a joke. Extremely long waits to see specialists and ridiculous appointment times for procedures. She has told me that many of the better off Canadians get health insurance and find medical care in the US to avoid the mess north of the border.

If this is a true concern for you and other Republicans, it is then vital for you and the other members of your party to work together in order to craft a better message and a better strategy than the ones that have prevailed during the last two election cycles. I don't have any false presumptions of glory over an Obama presidency combined with a Democrat-controlled Congress: they will go too far in some respects in the next two years, but they will also reverse some of the worst damage caused by six years of Bush/GOP domination in Washington.

A formidable opposition is important for any democratic government to succeed. After 2004, the Democratic Party was in terrible shape. Howard Dean then took charge of the DNC and said the following things:

• The electoral strategy of holding its key constituencies and hoping for a big swing state to fall in their favor didn't work. A 50-state strategy was needed to become competitive everywhere in the country.
• Likewise, it was vital to mobilize its voter base from the ground up, instead of speaking to it from atop a pedestal.
• Finally, it was vital to utilize new forms of communication to connect the grassroots activists across the country together, in order to form a cohesive and effective media outlook.

Under Dean's leadership, the Democrats have gone from being a party with no clear direction to one that is poised to place an iron grip on Washington in just four years. Simply put, the Republicans need to find a party leader who will be committed to a similar strategy.

[pjsnyc]

Conservatives say Obama's tax plan is just another form of a government handout.

What sounds like a a handout to me is when conservatives complain that the President should be Republican when coupled with a Democratic leaning legislative branch.

Just go with the flow and accept what happens. No handouts here please.

And by 'go with the flow' I mean accept that the demographics of this country are shifting - no matter who gets elected.

[ERC7.5]

Just go with the flow and accept what happens. No handouts here please.

That's really not how this is supposed to work. It's one of our FREEDOMS! The same way that it's one of your freedoms to bash the President and the things that have happened over the past 20 years (of course....we won't include WJC cuz he was awesome). These are the things that many are willing to give back to the gov't....or so it seems at this point in time. We will see....

[pjsnyc]

That's really not how this is supposed to work. It's one of our FREEDOMS! The same way that it's one of your freedoms to bash the President and the things that have happened over the past 20 years (of course....we won't include WJC cuz he was awesome). These are the things that many are willing to give back to the gov't....or so it seems at this point in time. We will see....

I think you missed my point. The shifting tides of the legislative branch are indicative of the shifting views of this country to the left (currently). Both sides will point to different reasons for these things to happen, but in the end - it is happening!

[ERC7.5]

I think you missed my point. The shifting tides of the legislative branch are indicative of the shifting views of this country to the left (currently). Both sides will point to different reasons for these things to happen, but in the end - it is happening!

I kind of disagree. I think it's more based off of bitterness. The Republican party has become more and more liberal which has raised quite a bit of bitterness in the conservatives. This along with other things...including a possible shift in the views of this country.

Regardless, to say that it needs to be accepted and to go with the flow is really not good advice. Better advice would be to get informed and make a decision from there based on how the information you've received affects you. Well....for me anyway.

[pjsnyc]

I kind of disagree. I think it's more based off of bitterness. The Republican party has become more and more liberal which has raised quite a bit of bitterness in the conservatives. This along with other things...including a possible shift in the views of this country.

Well of course - as an individual we must try to make the most informed decisions as best as we can.

I was merely pointing out the overall sentiment of this country as shifting to the left. I'll admit - go with the flow probably wasn't the best way to describe it, lol.

[immts007]

I kind of disagree. I think it's more based off of bitterness. The Republican party has become more and more liberal which has raised quite a bit of bitterness in the conservatives. This along with other things...including a possible shift in the views of this country.

ERC7.5, could you expand on or quantify this? Both of my parents are (were) lifelong Republicans - as is most of my family. Many of them are bitter because they think the party has been taken over by "the base" and bears little to no resemblance to the party they grew up in. In other words they think the GOP is far more right-wing than it ever has been in the past. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.

How has the GOP become 'liberal'? Are there some examples you can point too?

[ERC7.5]

How has the GOP become 'liberal'? Are there some examples you can point too?

I did not say that the GOP has become 'liberal'. I said that they have become 'more liberal'. Big difference.

ERC7.5, could you expand on or quantify this? Both of my parents are (were) lifelong Republicans - as is most of my family. Many of them are bitter because they think the party has been taken over by "the base" and bears little to no resemblance to the party they grew up in. In other words they think the GOP is far more right-wing than it ever has been in the past. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.

Anyway:

Based on what I hear from my extremely conservative friends & family (not all but some are extremely conservative). Based on what I hear from the evil foxnews folk (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc...). Based on what I've read on extremely conservative (albeit comedy based) blog(s). The entire week prior to McCain announcing his VP pick they were discussing how he needed to pick someone that is farther right to make the base settle down. Just because your parents are/were Republican doesn't make them conservative. Republican does not = Conservative. Democrat does not = Liberal. Etc... There's no way it's far more right wing than ever. Not in my opinion anway....whatever that is worth. I hope that suffices....

[ERC7.5]

Here is some more for you immts:

Under Bush's leadership, the national debt went from $5 trillion in 2001 to $10.5 trillion today. The doubling of our debt has had a devastating effect on our economy and our currency is quickly becoming worthless. Always happy to spend more money, rather than raising taxes Bush simply goes to China or Japan and borrows more. That kind of irresponsible behavior has brought this nation to the brink of a depression and destroys any notion of fiscal conservatism, once a trademark of the Republican Party. Ouch. As for McCain, Gibson notes his and the president's support for a comprehensive immigration bill that would grandfather in an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. In an e-mail, he said he plans to vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. "Many of us have grown weary of the politics of appeasement practiced by both Bush and McCain," he said. "As a result, we've stopped caring about this election long ago, when it became [clear] that there would actually be two liberals running for president in 2008."

From this

[immts007]

Well, I agree that they don't seem to be very fiscally conservative, but then again I think it's a wive's tail that they ever really were. Sure they would cut taxes for the wealthy but then go right ahead and spend like they had a limitless budget. This was true even of Reagan - the deficit increased mightly under his watch.

No, it's more the social conservatism that I'm talking about. The influence of religious fundamentalism has never been stronger.

People have always called McCain more 'liberal' than the bulk of the GOP, yet there is absolutely nothing in his voting record to back that up. It mystifies me.

[ERC7.5]

Well, I agree that they don't seem to be very fiscally conservative, but then again I think it's a wive's tail that they ever really were. Sure they would cut taxes for the wealthy but then go right ahead and spend like they had a limitless budget. This was true even of Reagan - the deficit increased mightly under his watch.

Ok? What are you getting at? You're steering my original post to where you want it to go....your post above and my post are not relatable at all.....

And I think I've taken this thread far enough off topic. Yes....I see you're trying to take it back (thanks...my bust).