Election Socialism
Some of matrushkaka's friends from back home have been urging her not to vote for Barack Obama because they say he's a socialist. I should start with some background and context. It used to be that you voted for a Republican to keep your taxes low, but that's not true this year. The message has sunk in that Obama's tax plan cuts more taxes for more families than McCain's does, so they're trying "plan B". Now his tax plan means he's a socialist!
Is this actually true? No. It is objectively incorrect empty fear mongering. It's an overbearing definition switcheroo. You can't just throw that word around: "Socialism" has a meaning. It means a centrally planned economy with state control and collective ownership of the Means Of Production. Barack Obama is completely opposed to socialism. So are his endorsers. Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute. Reagan ambassador Ken Adelman. Kenneth Duberstein, Reagan's former Chief of Staff. Warren Buffett, Richest Guy in the World. Six Nobel economists. These people are the complete opposite of socialists - they would be ruined by socialism.
I don't want to be facile. In casual conversation I understand that socialism isn't a simple textbook definition in black-and-white where something either is socialist or it isn't. Socialism is also not a school of thought. "Socialism" defines a very broad spectrum with many stopping points between extremes. And that's why saying that we should be worried about a move toward socialism is like saying I should be worried about frostbite because I commute north 20 miles every day.
fact_check_feed agrees that Obama is not "rewarding his friends with your tax dollars", unless by "friends" they mean the entire middle class. It's too bad that there's no scary word for McCain's policy of transferring wealth from people who don't have it to people who do. I've heard "corporate welfare", "plunder from above", and "fascist corporatism" but those phrases don't have the kind of scare mongering zing that make people think a great purge is just around the corner. Does anyone know how the British, Canadians, or Swedish have managed to avoid being herded off to work camps in Siberia? The injustices of tyrannical governments are correlated with but not caused by socialism.
News flash: all taxes are a socialist "redistribution of wealth". Government takes wealth via taxes and uses that money and does things for the public benefit. Wealth is redistributed to the benefit of taxpaying citizens in the form of defense, infrastructure, and services of which a very small fraction are social services. As socialist Colin Powell explained on Meet the Press:
Now I guess this week the message is that Mr. Obama is a socialist because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them - in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. Taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should pay more and who should pay less. For us to say that this makes you a socialist is an unfortunate accusation that isn't accurate. I don't want my taxes raised or anyone's taxes raised but I want to see our infrastructure fixed, I don't want a $12 trillion national debt, and I don't want to see an annual deficit that's over $500bn headed toward $1 trillion.
Why does government impose socialist taxes to pay for socialist programs? Because socialism works, which is why socialism is popular. The fire department, police department, electrical grid, telephone network, wireless spectrum, and armed forces are socialist institutions. Collectively owned by the government and centrally planned for the public benefit. Why is socialism popular? Why does it work, most of the time? Because humans primates are social creatures. Our natural history is one of communities where labor and benefit are divided between hunters, gatherers, artisans, engineers, the young, the elderly, and their caretakers. Primates recognize fairness and social equality keep our communities strong and balanced. This does not mean primate societies are egalitarian. The best hunters are rewarded with social status, breeding options, colorful shells, and tasty fruit in exchange for the social benefit that those hunters bring the community. But the critics never seem to acknowledge that this is a trade. Successful hunters receive rewards for their success from the community in exchange for sharing their success with the community. Hunters are welcome to go live in a cave and eat all the meat themselves, but don't expect any social status, tasty fruit, colorful shells, or tiger lookouts while you sleep. You've gotta pay to play.
McCain and Palin don't seem to realize that taxing the rich to provide opportunity to the poor is a Republican tradition. The progressive income tax was introduced to America by a socialist named Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1910 said "At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. ... I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes." At that time Teddy was making the case for New Nationalism, a powerful socialist program that protected supported social justice with child labor laws and minimum wage laws and a steep system of progressive taxation. 76 years later Ronald Reagan cut taxes to the poor with his socialist earned income tax credit expansion, "one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States". Were Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan always socialists, or does that word only apply when it's convenient?
And like the elitism issue what really bothers me about this attack is the hypocrisy. McCain and Palin are socialists. John McCain has been trying to paint Obama as Herbert Hoover to his FDR, ignoring the fact that the New Deal was a combination of social programs and a massive redistribution of wealth. Sarah Palin is even worse. More than 80% of Alaska's revenue comes from oil, which is how they're able to "spread the wealth around" by cutting everyone's taxes to zero and giving everyone a $2000 entitlement no matter how lazy they are. Palin's also gave out an additional $1200 this year for gas price relief - another massive welfare giveaway. Alaska can afford to do this not just because the state controls the means of (oil) production, but because as the third most socialist state they collect almost twice as much federal money as they contribute in federal taxes. Our tax money ends up in the pockets of lazy Alaskans who would rather complain about gas prices than learn about supply and demand. But McCain and Palin are not just economic socialists - these fearmongers warn us that progressive taxation and universal health care are "in other countries where the people aren't free" while advocating the measures by which those countries violate their citizens' freedom: warrantless wiretaps, suspending habeas, torture, secret courts, admission of evidence obtained via torture.
Somewhere on the laffer curve between the superflat head tax and FDR's 90% top bracket there are a few reasonable tax strategies where the government gets enough revenue to do what is necessary and the public pays what is fair and equitable. If someone would like to discuss this problem like an intelligent adult it would be a valuable conversation to have, especially during an election. But to throw around the word "socialist" is an offense to economics, history, reason, objectivity, political science, reality, TR and FDR, the true victims of socialist tyranny, and my intelligence.
Is this actually true? No. It is objectively incorrect empty fear mongering. It's an overbearing definition switcheroo. You can't just throw that word around: "Socialism" has a meaning. It means a centrally planned economy with state control and collective ownership of the Means Of Production. Barack Obama is completely opposed to socialism. So are his endorsers. Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute. Reagan ambassador Ken Adelman. Kenneth Duberstein, Reagan's former Chief of Staff. Warren Buffett, Richest Guy in the World. Six Nobel economists. These people are the complete opposite of socialists - they would be ruined by socialism.
I don't want to be facile. In casual conversation I understand that socialism isn't a simple textbook definition in black-and-white where something either is socialist or it isn't. Socialism is also not a school of thought. "Socialism" defines a very broad spectrum with many stopping points between extremes. And that's why saying that we should be worried about a move toward socialism is like saying I should be worried about frostbite because I commute north 20 miles every day.
fact_check_feed agrees that Obama is not "rewarding his friends with your tax dollars", unless by "friends" they mean the entire middle class. It's too bad that there's no scary word for McCain's policy of transferring wealth from people who don't have it to people who do. I've heard "corporate welfare", "plunder from above", and "fascist corporatism" but those phrases don't have the kind of scare mongering zing that make people think a great purge is just around the corner. Does anyone know how the British, Canadians, or Swedish have managed to avoid being herded off to work camps in Siberia? The injustices of tyrannical governments are correlated with but not caused by socialism.
News flash: all taxes are a socialist "redistribution of wealth". Government takes wealth via taxes and uses that money and does things for the public benefit. Wealth is redistributed to the benefit of taxpaying citizens in the form of defense, infrastructure, and services of which a very small fraction are social services. As socialist Colin Powell explained on Meet the Press:
Now I guess this week the message is that Mr. Obama is a socialist because he dares to suggest that maybe we ought to look at the tax structure that we have. Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them - in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. Taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should pay more and who should pay less. For us to say that this makes you a socialist is an unfortunate accusation that isn't accurate. I don't want my taxes raised or anyone's taxes raised but I want to see our infrastructure fixed, I don't want a $12 trillion national debt, and I don't want to see an annual deficit that's over $500bn headed toward $1 trillion.
Why does government impose socialist taxes to pay for socialist programs? Because socialism works, which is why socialism is popular. The fire department, police department, electrical grid, telephone network, wireless spectrum, and armed forces are socialist institutions. Collectively owned by the government and centrally planned for the public benefit. Why is socialism popular? Why does it work, most of the time? Because humans primates are social creatures. Our natural history is one of communities where labor and benefit are divided between hunters, gatherers, artisans, engineers, the young, the elderly, and their caretakers. Primates recognize fairness and social equality keep our communities strong and balanced. This does not mean primate societies are egalitarian. The best hunters are rewarded with social status, breeding options, colorful shells, and tasty fruit in exchange for the social benefit that those hunters bring the community. But the critics never seem to acknowledge that this is a trade. Successful hunters receive rewards for their success from the community in exchange for sharing their success with the community. Hunters are welcome to go live in a cave and eat all the meat themselves, but don't expect any social status, tasty fruit, colorful shells, or tiger lookouts while you sleep. You've gotta pay to play.
McCain and Palin don't seem to realize that taxing the rich to provide opportunity to the poor is a Republican tradition. The progressive income tax was introduced to America by a socialist named Teddy Roosevelt, who in 1910 said "At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. ... I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes." At that time Teddy was making the case for New Nationalism, a powerful socialist program that protected supported social justice with child labor laws and minimum wage laws and a steep system of progressive taxation. 76 years later Ronald Reagan cut taxes to the poor with his socialist earned income tax credit expansion, "one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States". Were Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan always socialists, or does that word only apply when it's convenient?
And like the elitism issue what really bothers me about this attack is the hypocrisy. McCain and Palin are socialists. John McCain has been trying to paint Obama as Herbert Hoover to his FDR, ignoring the fact that the New Deal was a combination of social programs and a massive redistribution of wealth. Sarah Palin is even worse. More than 80% of Alaska's revenue comes from oil, which is how they're able to "spread the wealth around" by cutting everyone's taxes to zero and giving everyone a $2000 entitlement no matter how lazy they are. Palin's also gave out an additional $1200 this year for gas price relief - another massive welfare giveaway. Alaska can afford to do this not just because the state controls the means of (oil) production, but because as the third most socialist state they collect almost twice as much federal money as they contribute in federal taxes. Our tax money ends up in the pockets of lazy Alaskans who would rather complain about gas prices than learn about supply and demand. But McCain and Palin are not just economic socialists - these fearmongers warn us that progressive taxation and universal health care are "in other countries where the people aren't free" while advocating the measures by which those countries violate their citizens' freedom: warrantless wiretaps, suspending habeas, torture, secret courts, admission of evidence obtained via torture.
Somewhere on the laffer curve between the superflat head tax and FDR's 90% top bracket there are a few reasonable tax strategies where the government gets enough revenue to do what is necessary and the public pays what is fair and equitable. If someone would like to discuss this problem like an intelligent adult it would be a valuable conversation to have, especially during an election. But to throw around the word "socialist" is an offense to economics, history, reason, objectivity, political science, reality, TR and FDR, the true victims of socialist tyranny, and my intelligence.