Socialism has meant many things to many people over the years and continents. Socialism does not mean the same thing to me as it does to those in Eastern Europe over the last half-century. But I like the definition provided in the mid-1800s by Frederic Bastiat, who wrote in The Law:
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. ... Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.
I won't explain all of Bastiat's views; you can read the entire work for that. It's not very long. But I note something here for the record: this definition for "socialism" (in Bastiat's original French work, "socialisme") is not new. People who respond "your definition of socialism is incorrect" are uninformed.
I say that socialism in modern America is marked by two features. The first is that the government is seen as unlimited (or at most, subject only to a few exceptions). Now, this feature is not unique to socialists: it can be found in many other groups as well, including certain rare strains of neoconservatism, those that find the government has unlimited power during wartime. With all such people, whether on the right or the left, they see the government's power as unlimited when it is used to accomplish the goals they have.
But this is anathema to the American Way. Our government is not unlimited subject to a few exceptions, it is limited, with only a few areas where it is allowed to act. This was done explicitly in order to preserve liberty, and removing those limits may invite tyranny. When those limits are removed outside of the democratic process that created them, it necessarily invites tyranny, because there's only three ways to remove the limits: through revolution, through legal means, or through tyranny. And no, elections "for change" do not count as revolution.
So that's the first part. The second part is the object the limitation-free government: taking from one person against his will to give it to someone else that it doesn't belong to.
This is what Bastiat called socialism, over 150 years ago. It's what I call socialism now. And you cannot read Bill Whittle's analysis of what Obama said in 2001 and come to any conclusion but that Obama fits this description.
Yes, to some extent, most of our politicians probably fit that description. Bastiat's "legal plunder" has become unfortunately commonplace.
But no top party nominee in our nation's history has so completely tossed out the idea of rule of law as Obama has. He explicitly states that limiting government to what the law says it is allowed to do is a "tragedy" that the legislature should fix. This is necessarily a call for the legislature to violate the rule of law.
And no top party nominee in our nation's history has ever wanted to redistribute wealth to the same extent as Obama.
By my 150-year-old definition, Obama is not only a socialist, but obviously the biggest socialist to ever be in reach of the White House. But ignore the labels: worse than the label you put on it, Obama wants to violate our rights by rewriting our Constitution without actually amending it, and to do so in dramatic ways.
And yes, some of us really are disturbed and a little bit scared of what the end result could be. We cherish our Constitution and our laws, as imperfect as they are, because they are what stand between us and a tyrannical government ... so long as those laws are followed. And Obama won't follow them.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at October 27, 2008 05:58 PM | Email ThisI've been taxed for sports stadiums for private teams, unemployment benefits I can't access as an owner, community swimming pools in podunk towns in Alaska and overhead projectors in Chicago.
I don't see anyone on the horizon that really wants to dramatically change that, nor has this not been happening throughout our history as a nation.
Now, after years of "signing statements" being let stand by one party, another party might be writing their own "signing statements".
Question, if Obama says that "limiting government to what the law says it is allowed to do is a tragedy that the legislature should fix". How is that a call to violate the rule of law - doesn't the legislature in our system write the laws?
If they rewrite the law (which is what they do all the time), where are you thinking the violation of the rule of law occurs?
Posted by: BA on October 27, 2008 06:26 PMI think the argument here isn't one of yes and no between the candidates and the parties for that matter, but only one of degree and emphasis.
Well sure, which is why I ended the piece the way I did, "But no top party nominee in our nation's history has so completely tossed out the idea of rule of law as Obama has ... And no top party nominee in our nation's history has ever wanted to redistribute wealth to the same extent as Obama."
Now, after years of "signing statements" being let stand by one party, another party might be writing their own "signing statements".
"Signing statements" are a complete red herring. The Democrats have falsely framed this as though Bush is trying to circumvent law with them. It's not true. Signing statements have NO force of law. The President has the direct right AND responsibility to interpret the law as he sees fit, and the signing statements merely explain what his interpretation is. This is no different from past administrations except that they were LESS OPEN about it: previous Presidents would still go by their own interpretation, they just wouldn't tell us what that interpretation was.
Question, if Obama says that "limiting government to what the law says it is allowed to do is a tragedy that the legislature should fix". How is that a call to violate the rule of law - doesn't the legislature in our system write the laws?
Because he said it, explicitly, in the context of the limits placed on the government by the Constitution. The legislature, as you know, has no authority to do that.
He says the Warren Court did not do go very far with wealth redistribution because the Constitution limited it. He was asked "well how can we get that redistribution, then?" And he said, "through the legislature." It's pretty clear.
Don't you ever get tired of such pathetically lame rhetoric?
Posted by: Robert on October 27, 2008 07:39 PMThe left seems to think in terms of winners and losers in the economic game and that the winners can only win by taking from the losers, in this case the poor and "middle class", though I suggest that the "middle class" is simply the stalking horse for poor and underclass, namely specific racial, and ethnic minorities.
When a company and it's owners make a profit, that is a theft of the workers. No profit is allowable to the owners unless properly shared with those on whose backs the profit was earned. It is a theft in the mind of the left when profits are not given to the labor. I have to say that there is an obvious flaw to this logic in that when there is a loss, the worker does not share directly in it, though he does suffer through unemployment or possibly future reduced earnings.
The key, however, is not the logic, but the perspective of the left. You constantly hear of windfall profit tax, such as for the oil companies when the price of oil was $140 a barrel. Never do you hear of windfall loss rebates for when the oil falls below $70. Those with capital do take risk, but the worker is also at risk, and the ones with the capital are often more careful to insure a soft landing for themselves than for the workers. That is an obvious disparity that rankles those on the left, though it does not prevent them from gilding their parachutes any chance they get.
Raines, Obama, Biden, they all have gained much income but seem to have little care for personally helping out those "coming behind" them. Maybe the need to use government to force the issue is due exactly to their realization of their own failures to willingly part with their wealth, obtained off the backs of the poor.
I think this is a key factor driving the left today and it is one in which the right has provided only poor answers. Without a clearer message on how the poor actually are NOT subject to the control of the wealthy, then the right will continue to be marginalized by the left as uncaring opportunists. I believe that the answers exist to this question, but the message is poorly delivered.
Posted by: Eyago on October 27, 2008 07:48 PMIt seems to me, from my armchair, that those currently on the left side of the aisle, politically in this country, do not see the question in the way that you frame it, Pudge.
Obviously. :-)
I think that they think there is a "theft of property" occurring against the poor in favor of the wealthy as a matter of...might I day..."Natural Law." It is a theft that must be countered by a power that exceeds the power of the wealthy. And only the the state can wield enough power to oppose that of moneyed interests.
Yes, they think that, but -- merits of the position aside -- it defies the Constitutional limits on the authority of the government. That is my main point here. I am not trying to convince anyone that socialism, as I've defined it, is bad, in this article. If they think it's grand, well, I won't change their mind tonight. :-) But only through complete delusion can anyone think that Obama does not represent socialism as I've described it.
I think this is a key factor driving the left today and it is one in which the right has provided only poor answers. Without a clearer message on how the poor actually are NOT subject to the control of the wealthy, then the right will continue to be marginalized by the left as uncaring opportunists. I believe that the answers exist to this question, but the message is poorly delivered.
I think no one wants to listen. They seem to just happily accept the status quo year after year.
I think no one wants to listen. They seem to just happily accept the status quo year after year.
I'm not sure that is the case completely. I think there is a level of "predisposition" in personalities that trend either to rules or to fairness. They may seem to be the same, but they are not. One tends to believe that fairness comes from everyone playing by the same rules while the other sees fairness as everyone getting the same outcome. So, there will be some who will always favor fair outcomes and others who will favor fair rules. There are others who can be swayed to understand either side given a clear message that appeals to their basic nature of goodness, and it is those people who need to hear a compelling message on why fair outcomes actually result in less good for all. They may still "prefer" the fair outcome scenario, but will grant that if the only way to assure fair outcome is to rig the game, then they will opt for the fair play method instead.
The right needs to more clearly connect with people and demonstrate to them that their sense of fair play is correct, and that people can take responsibility for their own outcome and that their success does not result in someone else's failure. Unfortunately, the right is often too strident on the "if you are a loser, it's cause you are lazy" message. That message will drown out most anything else.
In reading the vitriol spouted by the left against the right, it almost always comes down to an inherent belief that the right is racist, mysoginistic, homophobic, and elitist, in love with money. They simply cannot believe that we have any other motive but disdain for those not like us. Now, I don't think we should frame our positions to appease the David Matthews of the world, but until the right does a better job of demonstrating the value of their ideology to those on the lower rungs of the ladder in a way that does not belittle them, it will be very easy for the left to tar and feather us as they currently do.
Posted by: Eyago on October 27, 2008 08:26 PMI read The Law and hundreds of other classical works in the last forty years and have been deeply enriched. But further reading now will be a counter-productive and even fatal diversion; you know all you need to know, now you must act.
There is a time for war and a time for peace. We are at war, and other peacetime options are clearly futile, and really, really stupid.
You must keep your software basic now, or you will process yourself into defeat.
Keep it simple, stupid (KISS): Obama is a threat to our national security and he and his followers must be stopped.
Recall the scene in Independence Day when the President asks the alien what he really wants and the alien simply screams he wants to kill us. The following clip of an FBI informant shows the educated Weather Underground wanted to kill 25 million Americans to implement their goals. Those people are still with us, and they have more power. Now Obama is their front man. I have been in the deepest parts of some of their minds and they are pure evil. They don't negotiate, and neither must we.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/276377.php
Violence is always the last resort, and you have not given me reason to believe we are at that point.
As BA said, the legislature writes the laws, so your point is nonsense. Then you said he's talking about using laws to overturn the Constitution, which is also impossible, so I'm not sure why you're getting all worked up about it. However, there is a large space between what the constitution allows and what it requires. That's where laws come in, and that's what Obama was talking about. Surely you know that.
no top party nominee in our nation's history has ever wanted to redistribute wealth to the same extent as Obama.
You provide no evidence for this ridiculous statement. There is, however, indisputable data that income inequality in the USA has increased drastically in recent decades and is now at Gilded Age levels. True, there are many causes for this, but given the historical context, it's hard to worry about Obama's "socialist" (a term you admit applies to most politicians under your definitions) desires to get us closer to historical norms.
Posted by: Bruce on October 27, 2008 10:11 PMUmmmmmm. What part of "the legislature cannot write laws that violate the Constitution" do you not understand?
Then you said he's talking about using laws to overturn the Constitution, which is also impossible
Um. Ever hear of Social Security? No Child Left Behind? Warrantless wiretaps? The Detainee Treatment Act/Military Commissions Act?
What planet have you been living on?
However, there is a large space between what the constitution allows and what it requires.
Not really: the Constitution disallows most things, so it is hard for there to be a "large" space between "not much" and "not much."
That's where laws come in, and that's what Obama was talking about. Surely you know that.
False. Obama was EXPLICITLY talking about circumventing the LIMITS OF THE CONSTITUTION in the legislature.
However, I don't see this in the comments. His main point (which should be dear to any conservative) is that the courts are not the arena in which to enact major social change i.e. the courts should not legislate from the bench. If change needs to happen, it should happen legislatively and not from the bench.
I do not see any declarations that there should be a redistribution of wealth; rather, I see a person versed in constitutional law examining the intersections between social movements (civil rights) and the court system. There is nowhere in his comments that he disagrees with the limitations of the constitution or the courts interpretation of it - he simply says that in order to effect change, you need to work with people on the ground and to hopefully make change through law, not judicial decree.
And this is all because he wants to let George Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire? I mean, c'mon. Let's argue the effectiveness of tax policy, not whether or not Socialism is about to descend upon us like a plague.
Posted by: todd on October 27, 2008 11:13 PMHowever, I don't see this in the comments.
Well, OK, but it is what he actually said.
His main point (which should be dear to any conservative) is that the courts are not the arena in which to enact major social change
No, his main point -- what he actually said -- is that the Court hasn't/won't "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," and that this is what the legislature must bypass in order to bring about "redistributive change" (i.e., wealth redistribution).
I do not see any declarations that there should be a redistribution of wealth
OK. Let me point it out to you: he said one of the "failures of the civil-rights movement" was that it didn't get the system to "enter into the issues of redistribution of wealth," that it was not able to bypass the courts and achieve "redistributive change."
That is an absolutely clear statement that his goal is wealth redistribution.
There is nowhere in his comments that he disagrees with the limitations of the constitution or the courts interpretation of it
Regardless, he does say that he wanted to bypass those limitations outside of the Court system: he says that the goal of "redistribution of wealth" was not allowed by the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, and that therefore the civil rights movement should have worked on "political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."
That necessarily means ignoring the limitations of the Constitution, unless he was talking about amending the Constitution, but moments later he is talking about working through laws in the legislature, not working on amendments.
If he DOES agree with those limitations, then that's even worse: he's saying he agrees with them, but that we should ignore them anyway.
And this is all because he wants to let George Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire?
First, that's simply not true: Obama would raise taxes on the "wealthiest Americans" well beyond what they were before Bush's tax cuts. Not only would he return those top two rates to punishing levels, but he would impose a new Social Security tax, and phase out many deductions. So the top rate now for income over $250,000 is 37.9 percent (35 percent, plus 2.9 percent Medicare), but under Obama, it would be about 50 percent (39.6 base, plus 2.9, plus 2-4 percent for SS, plus about 4.5 percent for the loss of exemptions). So every dollar over $250,000 is going to seen an increase of about 12 percentage points, or a 25 percent tax increase, from the current rate (and about 7.5 percentage points above where it was when Clinton left office).
Every dollar earned in that range is going to be worth 1/8th less to the earner than it is today (excluding inflation, of course), and only half of its face value. That's a heck of a lot.
Second no, it goes much deeper than what the taxes are, anyway. As I clearly stated, socialism -- and the reason why it is so dangerous -- is not merely in the exercise of the power, but the OBJECT of that power. Raising taxes for some purposes -- to pay down the debt, for example -- is not necessarily wealth redistribution, and can be justified (so long as the existing revenue is being spent well).
I mean, c'mon. Let's argue the effectiveness of tax policy, not whether or not Socialism is about to descend upon us like a plague.
No. I am explaining the principles as stated by Obama -- that you missed, so it's a good thing I pointed out -- and discussing why those principles are bad. We cannot have a rational discussion about the effectiveness of tax policy without agreeing on the principles behind those policies. Obama wants to raise taxes to effect wealth redistribution, so my response is that while his tax policy might be effective toward that end, it is a violation of the Constitution and is therefore illegal, not to mention immoral, as part of the reason WHY it is unconstitutional is because it violates my right to property.
Posted by: pudge on October 28, 2008 12:00 AMYeah, if Obama is elected I'll probably go buy an AR-15, or an AK-47, or somesuch. Obama will try to take away many of our gun rights. He has proven his devotion to that issue over the years, calling the lapsing of the assault weapons ban a tragedy, and so on.
And with the economy the way it is, and the levels of socialism set to drastically increase, I do not discount the possibility of significant chaos that would require firepower to protect my family. I don't think that is likely, but one never knows.
SS and medicare are taxed at 7.9% on the first $92,000 in income per year, and all income over that amount is "entitlement tax" free. I'm not opposed to what you are saying, but get the math right and don't feel the need to make stuff up to support your position. I'm sure the truth will work just fine.
Posted by: alan on October 28, 2008 01:05 AMIf you want a less slanted and hysterical interpretation of the Obama interview, I suggest The Volokh Conspiracy web site.
Posted by: wayne on October 28, 2008 02:01 AMObama's interview didn't need any interpretation. His wording was very telling when he uses terms like "economic and social Justice", "redistribution of wealth" and "redistributive change". He also appears to lament the fact that the 1964 civil rights act didn't bring about this "redistributive change" to America. All of these terms are Socialist in nature and a strict departure from the America the founding father's had instituted with the formation of the U.S. Constitution.
Is Obama a "transformational figure" as Colin Powell described? Yes. A figure that, given to his own devices, would transform this country from a Democratic republic into one adhering to Communist principles- hardly a change we need.
This man is a perversion of every principle America was founded on and his brand of "change" is not one most citizens will stand by quietly in accepting.
Defeat Socialism Vote NO-bama this Nov.4th
You know that economic and political freedoms are inextricably entertwined. You set forth a good case that we will lose a massive amount of our economic freedoms under an Obama dictatorship. I will not even attempt to posit your necessary and sufficient conditions of self-defense. That is for you to explicate.
Will you wait until they are at your door? It will be too late. Will you wait until you lose 75% of your income. It will be too late. Will you wait until they are at the doors of your neighbors, or relatives in Massachusetts? It will be too late.
Where you set your tripwires is your business; just make sure you set them far enough away to make a difference. Also be sure no one knows where your tripwires are; not even your wife. Study the one-man cell to maximize your playtime. Also study the Weather Underground's tactics while you still have an internet. Nothing will change if you continue business as usual. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Get busy.
Posted by: 5.62 on October 28, 2008 06:25 AMClearly, the O-blah-blah's mentality is redistribution of wealth...rather than GROWING the economy. The Socialist/Marxist belief is the Economic Pie is FINITE! The fact is the ECONOMIC PIE can & will grow. Totally different outlook toward economic. The FINITE ECONOMIC PIE attitude is prevalent among TEAM HORSESASS. It's an attitude of jealousy & envy of those who have.
40% of Americans don't pay Federal INCOME Tax. O-blah-blah wants that to grow....it's called WELFARE and creates his power base of DEPENDENCY! O-blah-blah is nothing more than a slick, reinvented Jesse Jackson.
I made nothing up.
First, the SSI cap is now up to $102K. And as wayne said, Medicare is not capped.
Second, Obama has said he would increase SS taxes for income over $250,000. He has talked about a "donut hole" where the SS cap would continue to increase. So you would get an exemption for dollars between $100-$250K, but dollars above that would be taxed.
You're underinformed, alan. Obama's plan is to increase taxes as I described.
And wayne, nothing I said was hysterical or slanted. I used the plain meaning of Obama's own words. And if you mean this piece on Volokh, it appears to agree with my interpretation of what Obama said.
The odd thing about that piece though, is that he says "this is normal for Democrats." Well, not the degree, though: especially when you consider this is the first time I know of, since I've been paying taxes and for awhile before, where we are increasing taxes on one group of people just to cut a check to another. Literally. Not to provide health care, or welfare, or education, but a literal check, to people who are not even paying income tax. Literally taking money out of some pockets and handing it to another person. You don't get more redistributive than that. It's literal theft, plain and simple.
You can argue -- poorly in my opinion, but still -- that taking money from people to pay for social services is not theft, it's just the business of government. But taking money from people to hand it to other people who aren't paying taxes is theft. There's no getting around it.
5.62: I have no relatives in Massachusetts. You've apparently got me confused with someone else. It seems you might have a lot of things confused.
You talk too much. Get busy.
Posted by: 5.62 on October 28, 2008 08:10 AMThis is probably the most insightful post you have had in a long while.
I have to point out to everybody that if you agree with what Pudge says in this post, then you will agree with me that we nominated the wrong Republican this year. The only presidential candidate for either major party that fully understands the liberty and economic situation is Ron Paul.
I know, I know...love him or hate him, you have to admit that he has been right more than wrong on so many issues. (He predicted the housing bubble way back in 2002 and introduced a bill in the House to prevent it. He was laughed at by his fellow Republicans). And now, just like during the great depression, leftist/marxists are going to use the economic downturn as a premise to force through tyrannical social and economic policies that would never be considered in a time of normalcy.
Posted by: blindman on October 28, 2008 08:12 AMLet's look at some modern day examples then of government actions:
1. Progressive (or Regressive) Tax system: How does one or the other, or neither fit into you definition? If neither fit into your definition, then how is not McCain also a "socialist." McCain is talking about giving certain citizens additional tax cuts over others (e.g., corporations, higher income individuals). Is this not taking from the poor and giving to the rich? To me, Steve Forbes and others who promoted a flat tax, no deductions, no credits, was the only tax scenario that doesn't fit your definition since in all other cases, it is placing the burden on one portion of the society at a greater proportion than the other. One could also argue that the infinite tax credits and deductions that added and subtracted on a yearly basis are also socialists. Just because it may benefit business over individuals doesn't make it non-socialist, by the above definition.
2. Environment: Given the above definition, how is it justifiable for businesses to use up or pollute our common environment and thus take away this common resource from all of us. For example, Rossi will have to balance the budget (or at least promised to), which means, given he doesn't have that many places to cut, he will cut the Department of Ecology. This means cuts in enforcement of environmental laws. Never mind the fact that almost half the agency is self-supporting based on the collections it receives from polluters, Rossi will cut this enforcement out. This takes away my rights as a citizen to receive compensation when some tanker dumps its fuel in the Sound. By your above definition, this is socialism (support to the polluters over the common citizen).
3. Finally, George Bush's Snooping on Telephone calls. It has been documented (recently) that the calls intercepted were not just calls to terrorists, but ordinary calls of military spouses to their wives or husbands overseas. Is this not taking away those military personnel's right to privacy? How is this not fit your definition of socialism?
By the definition you gave, I would have to say each and everyone of us are socialist because there are policies we support that take away from one class of citizen to favor another. Part of my problem is the definition doesn't give enough weight to the society as a whole (ergo the benefits to society versus the benefits to individuals). Coming from you, I can see why you like this definition. You have a libertarian bent, but we as a society do not agree with this individualism as being supreme. The majority in the country, the center, believes in some government and the need for balance between society and individuals. Now, if your fear holds true that the swing will proceed too far the other way where individual rights are being neglected, I will vote the opposite way. I am in the center and like a balance. I feel it has swung too far to the libertarian side and the result is such things as the meltdown on Wall Street due to the lack of oversight. I don't see in what Obama is proposing the vast shift to the socialist state you are claiming. Yes, it is a shift from the libertarian mode we have been in, but to me it is a shift to slightly left of center. It is a slight over correction for the imbalance that is currently present. Once the balance has recovered, however, you also need to realize that the country as a whole will not let it get too out of balance the other way. We are a center-driven (slightly right-of-center) country. If the Republicans continue to listen to the right-wing, libertarian side of their party, they will face a Tory situation. Like the Tories, the recovery will come for the party when it moves back towards the center. It should be interesting to see the infighting between the Romney camp and the Palin backers in the next four years. I believe Romney has the right "stuff" to bring the party back to the center, but my guess is the Kristols, Hannity's, and Limbaugh's of the world won't let him go there.
Posted by: tc on October 28, 2008 08:15 AMI believe you are right about how the left sees the economy. The left likes to see the economy as a zero-sum game. The only way anybody can get richer is if somebody, usually lots of people according to them, get poorer. It's the only way they can fool themselves into thinking that government sponsored theft is a moral system of government. The zero-sum theory also formed the basis of the old economic theory of mercantilism.
Posted by: blindman on October 28, 2008 08:33 AMTalking is doing, too. Ask Tom Paine.
blindman:
I have to point out to everybody that if you agree with what Pudge says in this post, then you will agree with me that we nominated the wrong Republican this year.
Huh. *I* agree with what I say, but *I* don't think Ron Paul should have been our nominee. So what does that say? :-) McCain was not my first choice, but he is a top choice. If I were to pick on pure ideology, Ron Paul would have been higher on my list, but I think even then Fred would've been higher. But the main point is that I don't think Ron Paul would make a good President, even if I agreed with him on everything.
I know, I know...love him or hate him, you have to admit that he has been right more than wrong on so many issues
So has McCain. So has Fred. So have I!
You are no Tom Paine. You are scared, and can't talk your way out of defending your family. Get busy.
Posted by: 5.62 on October 28, 2008 08:48 AMProgressive (or Regressive) Tax system: How does one or the other, or neither fit into you definition?
Again, it is about the OBJECT of the taxes. What they are USED for. That is primarily what marks socialism. If you have a progressive tax to pay down debt and provide national defense, and nothing else, I could hardly call that socialism.
how is not McCain also a "socialist."
Did you not read my whole post? Others missed it to: I clearly said,
Yes, to some extent, most of our politicians probably fit that description. Bastiat's "legal plunder" has become unfortunately commonplace.
But no top party nominee in our nation's history ...
I am obviously talking about a sliding scale here. Does McCain's view have elements of socialism in it? Absolutely. Does Obama's have FAR MORE socialism in it? Absolutely.
McCain is talking about giving certain citizens additional tax cuts over others (e.g., corporations, higher income individuals). Is this not taking from the poor and giving to the rich?
Correct, it is not. How could it possibly be?! You are CUTTING taxes for EVERYONE. So how is it taking from anyone to give to anyone else? I suppose you could say, since it provides less money to pay down the debt, that it is taking from future taxpayers to give to current taxpayers, but in no logical sense is it taking anything from the poor. The poor are RECEIVING far more than they are getting.
Especially since the poor still have a tax rate between 0 and 15 percent, while the rich have a tax rate of over double that. Even under McCain. And yet you think the government is taking from the poor to give to the rich?! That is utter tripe, tc.
Your question only makes sense if we assume that the money being taxed belongs to the government and the people, instead of to the person who earned it.
Given the above definition, how is it justifiable for businesses to use up or pollute our common environment and thus take away this common resource from all of us.
It's not.
For example, Rossi will have to balance the budget (or at least promised to), which means, given he doesn't have that many places to cut, he will cut the Department of Ecology.
False. You mean cut FROM said department? Perhaps.
This means cuts in enforcement of environmental laws.
False. It does not mean that at all. You're just making things up and it's boring. You are lying, tc.
This takes away my rights as a citizen to receive compensation when some tanker dumps its fuel in the Sound. By your above definition, this is socialism (support to the polluters over the common citizen).
No, nothing in my definition implies that at all. Where do you get from ANYTHING I said that it is "socialist" for the government to use its authority to protect individual rights and public resources? Again, you're making things up.
Finally, George Bush's Snooping on Telephone calls.
For the record: which the Democrats support.
It has been documented (recently) that the calls intercepted were not just calls to terrorists, but ordinary calls of military spouses to their wives or husbands overseas. Is this not taking away those military personnel's right to privacy? How is this not fit your definition of socialism?
First, your implication is that Bush supported or in any way condoned such invasions of privacy. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. It seems from the evidence most likely that it was a decision made much further down the line. Bush is responsible for the failure, but there is no evidence suggesting that was his intent.
Second, even assuming for the sake of argument this did come from Bush, this has NOTHING TO DO with my definition of socialism. It's completely unrelated. It is related only in that the same types of views that lead to socialism also lead to other types of tyranny, as I described in the original post, such as fascism and so on. So related root principles, but tyranny of a different kind.
By the definition you gave, I would have to say each and everyone of us are socialist because there are policies we support that take away from one class of citizen to favor another.
Not me, no. I do not favor a single policy that does that.
You have a libertarian bent, but we as a society do not agree with this individualism as being supreme.
Yes, obviously, for the last 100 years, a majority of society has chosen to strip away individual liberties in contravention of the Constitution and morality. Stating this fact does not help your case.
The majority in the country, the center, believes in some government and the need for balance between society and individuals.
Yes, the majority is not very good at thinking clearly. This makes as little sense as saying your right to speak should be "balanced" by ensuring that everyone else has the right to use your web site or radio station to or newspaper to rebut what you say.
I don't see in what Obama is proposing the vast shift to the socialist state you are claiming.
Sad.
If the Republicans continue to listen to the right-wing, libertarian side of their party, they will face a Tory situation.
Recent history proves you wrong. When Republicans act like conservatives, they win elections: Reagan, the Republican Congress in '94, and so on. When they stop acting like conservatives, they generally get thrown out.
Posted by: pudge on October 28, 2008 09:11 AMYou are no Tom Paine.
Correct. So? My words are helping to win elections and sway minds. This is, of course, not all I do. But it matters, and is not insignificant.
You are scared
Again, you have me confused with someone else. Perhaps you should "get busy" and find this person you have me confused with, so you can help him.
I would like to pile on to what Pudge said regarding your first question in post #25.
Your fundamental flaw seems to be an assumption that the money the government gets belongs to the government. That is essentially what Pudge said.
The point here is that if you cut the taxes of one group and raise the taxes of another group you are not redistributing wealth. You are redistributing BURDEN, but not wealth. Only when you give to someone money that they never earned do you contribute to redistribution of wealth.
Thus, taxes themselves do not contribute to redistribution of wealth no matter how progressive or regressive. If all our taxes were paid by the poor and not by the rich and none of the tax revenue was given to the rich in the form of credits or payments, then no redistribution has occurred. Unfairness has occurred, but not redistribution. The same thing can be said for making the rich pay more than the poor as a percentage of their income. It does not redistribution.
One could argue that since the federal government is in the business of assisting the poor at many levels with various forms of assistance, then it does engage in redistribution of wealth. But that is irrespective of tax policy.
Posted by: Eyago on October 28, 2008 09:36 AMGiven that, why is it that Republicans haven't learned this?
Posted by: BA on October 28, 2008 09:41 AMPudge, some of us tried to change the status quo by supporting Ron Paul. I really think the liberty message is where the Republicans should couch their entire platform in the next cycle. The liberty message excites people and speaks to people.
The Republicans are letting the left hijack the liberty message and deride it. Unionist teachers have turned "school choice" into a dirty term. Obama has turned "deregulation" into the boogeyman coming to get you.
If Republicans came out hitting hard with a platform of small government and liberty, I think people would respond well to it. Especially in 2010 if Obama wins and the Dems pick up seats. Their heavy-handed governing style would play right into Republican hands. It would be 1994 all over again. Maybe the Republicans should start cribbing from what made Ron Paul so popular. I'm not saying they should adopt his full platform of ideas, but at least tease out the underlying liberty message and run with it:
On a local level, we really need to figure out some way to make the schools better and get some road projects done. I feel like the WEA has such a stranglehold on the public school system that the only way to improve it is with a voucher system. It is the only way to create consequences for their failure to teach. But I have no idea how to make vouchers happen. The WEA basically runs this state and has successfully kept parents hostage with the public school system even while completely failing to deliver on their half of the bargain.
As for roads, we should switch to a toll based revenue system while significantly reducing or eliminating the gas tax. I have no clue why people think toll roads are socialism, they clearly are not. Use taxes are the only fair way to collect taxes and use them for infrastructure. If every dollar collected from drivers on I-405 went towards improving I-405, as the road improved, it would generate more and more revenue until it started generating an excess of revenue, at which point, the tolls could be reduced to a maintenance level. The road gets fixed, taxes go down, problem solved.
Posted by: blindman on October 28, 2008 09:44 AM"Environment: Given the above definition, how is it justifiable for businesses to use up or pollute our common environment and thus take away this common resource from all of us."
It is all about strong private property rights. Owning private property and mining it's resources does not "use up" our "common environment" since those resource will be used to create products and jobs and ultimately will be "recycled" either by putting the resource bad into the ground in a landfill or by reusing it in new products.
As for the pollution aspect, stronger private property rights would give land owners recourse for loss of property value due to the pollution. Do you think that the waterfront homes on the Duwamish waterway would be super cheap if Boeing hadn't polluted the river so badly? Those property owners should have been entitled to some legal recourse for the localized pollution. If juries can award millions of dollars for being burned by hot coffee, then they should be able to award millions of dollars for people affected by pollution.
When the government stepped in (EPA) they limited the liability of the companies that polluted in exchange for regulatory authority. It was a bum deal, and so will be the government run carbon emissions cap and trade system.
Stronger property rights would solve this problem. Property owners seeking damages would make corporations think twice about not being good stewards of the land. There has to be a check somewhere and I'd rather it be done in the private sector than through the government.
First of all, SS taxes are not regressive, they are flat. Everyone pays the same amount on each dollar earned. People believe it is regressive because the tax is capped at $102k. But that cap is covered by a bap in benefits. See following points.
Second, the benefits of SSI are PROGRESSIVE and favor the poor over the rich, so SS taxes are very favorable to the poor and unfavorable to the rich. The benefits paid out DECREASE as income rises.
First you calculate your average indexed monthly salary over you best 35 years of work. From that monthly average:
The first $711 you get 90% in benefits
From $712 to $4,288, you get 32% in benefits
and from $4,289 to $8,500 you get only %15 in benefits. All money made after $8,500 receive no benefits.
Funny thing is, the $8,500 is exactly the point where you stop paying taxes, too. In other words, you get no benefits for any income over $102k per year and so you don't pay any taxes on that income either. So it is clear that the rich get no benefit. In fact, any efforts to remove the SSI cap is precisely a move to increase wealth distribution by making the rich pay into a system for which they will receive no benefit so that others will have more.
Already the people with the lowest incomes receive the highest percentage of benefit per dollar earned, and the wealthiest receive the lowest. Apparently that is still not good enough for some who feel that the rich simply do not pay enough and should be taxed more and that the poor pay too much and should receive tax credits to offset the SSI payments turning the SSI program in to one big welfare program where the rich pay and the poor receive.
Posted by: Eyago on October 28, 2008 10:02 AMI really think the liberty message is where the Republicans should couch their entire platform in the next cycle.
I agree.
It would be 1994 all over again. Maybe the Republicans should start cribbing from what made Ron Paul so popular. I'm not saying they should adopt his full platform of ideas, but at least tease out the underlying liberty message and run with it
I agree. Ron Paul is his own institution and opinions of him are colored by emotional baggage, but I remember when our own SP colleague here Bruce Guthrie debated Dino and Christine, and a LOT of Republicans like most of what Bruce had to say.
Drastically lowering federal spending across the board to bring the deficit under control and to restore our financial independence again. The dollar was once the world's strongest and most stable currency, it can be again.
I agree with the first part. Not sure about the second. A "strong dollar" weakened exports. I am no expert on monetary policies, but I am not crazy about a strong dollar.
Drop the whole one-man-and-one-woman amendment crap--it will always be a losing issue.
Probably, although there's two separate issues here: codifying that marriage is between a man and a woman, and protecting individual states from being forced to accept the marriage changes of other states.
That said, my view is that we should abolish all "civil marriage," leaving "marriage" up to social institutions entirely, and replace it with a "civil partnership," which will not be defined, in any way, on the incidence of a romantic relationship, but simply on whether the two people are deciding to share resources and grant rights and privileges. So it would be open to sisters living together, or best friends, or married couples, or unmarried heterosexual couples, or gay couples.
This wins over many of the people who don't like the fact that government is redefining marriage, it keeps your relationship details private, and it provides for more stability in society overall. I have lots of unmarried friends who share their lives with their mates, even kids, but simply dislike the "institution of marriage." They would benefit, and society would benefit, from them being able to have "marriage" recognized by government.
Regarding all social issues, Republicans need to bring back the "big tent". we need to talk seriously about how our federalist system allows Californians and Texans, Alaskans and New Yorkers to disagree on fundamental social issues and that the disagreement is OK and that it is a sign that we are still a government by the people, for the people.
I agree, EXCEPT on the issue of abortion. If it is a government by and for the people, that should include all individual human lives. I won't bend on this anymore than abolitionists bent on slavery. It's non-negotiable.
That doesn't mean I won't work with Republicans who disagree with my position, but it does mean that I will not bend on this issue.
But I have no idea how to make vouchers happen.
Only one way: get the people to support it over time. Probably will require an initiative.
we should switch to a toll based revenue system while significantly reducing or eliminating the gas tax
Unfortunately, there are many practical problems with tolls. Many of them are solvable, but they can create more congestion, and RFID solutions often lack serious privacy protections. If those problems are solved, then yes, I would like such a thing.
The rest I agree with you on.
"In fact, any efforts to remove the SSI cap is precisely a move to increase wealth distribution by making the rich pay into a system for which they will receive no benefit so that others will have more."
You are exactly right. That's why Obama has floated the idea of eliminating the social security tax cap. He is a socialist per Pudge's definition.
The best way to de-politicize this whole issue is to get the government out of it by scrapping social security and replacing it with a private system. Like I said in a post above, Chile has figured this out.
Posted by: blindman on October 28, 2008 10:11 AMAbsolutely right. And what confuses me is to why we don't tell people like Warren Buffet that we won't give them ANY benefits. Literally, taxes on some in the middle class are increased annually (through the cap increase) in part so we can pay super-wealthy people SS benefits.
Yes, they "earned" it. But SS is a house of cards anyway. At some point, we WILL have to either increase taxes on current payers, or decrease benefits, to make sure everyone gets a cut. And that WILL be unfair, no matter how it is done, because either you will end up paying in more that you won't get, or you will end up getting less than you were promised when you paid in. So we might as well be "unfair" to the superrich who are collecting benefits.
And before anyone calls me a sociaist: I'd rather phase out SS entirely. But that won't happen. The problem is caused by the existence of SS. My solution is to eliminate it. Barring that, since someone is going to get "socialized," it might as well be the Warren Buffets of the world.
"That said, my view is that we should abolish all "civil marriage," leaving "marriage" up to social institutions entirely, and replace it with a "civil partnership," which will not be defined, in any way, on the incidence of a romantic relationship, but simply on whether the two people are deciding to share resources and grant rights and privileges. So it would be open to sisters living together, or best friends, or married couples, or unmarried heterosexual couples, or gay couples."
Pudge,
If you go back through the threads on this site you'll find that I have made this exact same argument many times before. I completely agree with you. The state really only has an interest in taxation, liability, child custody, power of attorney for medical decisions, and inheritance. All of which can be covered through civil contracts and/or legal proceedings/declarations.
Marriage is a religious institution. The government doesn't issue licenses for baptisms or bar mitzvahs so why do they have the right to issue licenses for marriages? I think we should eliminate all laws regulating marriage and replace it with a strong legal contract framework where people can agree to share or assign legal responsibilities like the ones I listed above.
I don't like to use the term "civil union" because it is so emotionally charged, but for gay people looking to have the same benefits as a married couple, they would use this legal contract to essentially form a "civil union".
Posted by: blindman on October 28, 2008 10:25 AMtwo constitutional issues you brought up:
"...protecting individual states from being forced to accept the marriage changes of other states."
The best course of action is to get the government out of the role of defining marriage because the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution applies to marriage contracts.
"I agree, EXCEPT on the issue of abortion. If it is a government by and for the people, that should include all individual human lives. I won't bend on this anymore than abolitionists bent on slavery. It's non-negotiable."
I respect that. I personally agree with you. But I would never back any federal action to ban it outright. I am completely against Roe v. Wade because it was a major blow to federalism. I believe that it isn't the Federal government's position to decide this social issue. Taking the federalism route on it makes the most people happy.
The Constitution is a document of principles and boundaries which leaves room for compromise at the realpolitik level. I believe abortion, though a compromise today, will eventually be completely outlawed as a barbaric practice.
Posted by: blindman on October 28, 2008 10:37 AMWe're really veering off topic but I've got one more thing to say: I think we should start an initiative to deregulate marriage in WA and replace it with the "civil partnership".
I've been waiting for an initiative to get in on at some point and I had narrowed it down to either "right to work" or "deregulate marriage". I think the "deregulate marriage" has a better chance in this state.
Posted by: blindman on October 28, 2008 10:44 AMThe best course of action is to get the government out of the role of defining marriage because the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution applies to marriage contracts.
Yes. Until that happens, however, I do support states being protected from the legal marriage definitions of other states. Unfortunately, I think you're right that this violates the 14th (though I am unsure), which is why I would favor an amendment. However, I would be MORE in favor of the other course of action described, which would remove the need for it.
(I actually would not want the amendment above to pass, but would support it in the hopes that it would help foster about the latter change toward elimination of civil marriage.)
I would never back any federal action to ban it outright.
I would, just as I support the 13th Amendment. I don't believe it can stand that the Constitution defines that people get rights, but then cannot define what a person IS.
I believe that it isn't the Federal government's position to decide this social issue.
Again: just like the 13th Amendment to me. Well, OK, not just like it: obviously, slavery was already written into the Constitution, and thus an amendment was required. However, I would have favored the 13th Amendment even if the Constitution were silent on slavery, just as I would have supported the 1st and 2nd and 4th and 14th Amendments. I think fundamental issues of human liberty do belong in the Constitution.
We're really veering off topic but I've got one more thing to say: I think we should start an initiative to deregulate marriage in WA and replace it with the "civil partnership".
OK. There's lots of issues I care about more, but I would support such an effort, depending on how it was written.
"OK. There's lots of issues I care about more, but I would support such an effort, depending on how it was written."
Well I'm not married to that idea ;-) I'm curious, which other issues do you care about more?
If you had to file three new initiatives for the next election cycle, what would they be?
Mine:
1. right to work
2. deregulation of marriage
3. something to make our elections more secure (I'm not sure what yet, I'm doing research on the alternatives, but I'm leaning towards a new open and secure electronic voting platform built with open-source software and hardware).
That's just off the top of my head, but I am sure I could think of even more I'd put before marriage reform. I want it, but it doesn't affect me much, and I won't justify spending a ton of time on it.
Now regarding your comments:
1. I would agree with you that it isn't the tax per se, but the Object (Objective) of the tax (i.e., what the tax is directed at/for).
2. I would agree with your next comment section that based on a sliding scale and given your definition that Obama's plans would appear to greater support the definition than McCain's plans, and that both have elements of the definition in the plans. I am not sure, however, one could find a candidate that doesn't have elements, no matter how hard they try to be pure.
3. In your next section, just a couple of clarifications. I believe the definition does address future as well as present. Tax cuts when we have a deficit means making future generations pay back for services consumed today. I do not believe that tax cuts for the rich "trickle" down in the global economy we have today. I have less of an issue with business tax cuts, than I do the personal income tax levels. Additionally, you are incorrect when comparing tax rates to just compare tax brackets. The tax brackets only apply to income earned through certain activities, such as wages, interest, and dividends. They don't apply to capital gains, which for the wealthy comes into play a lot more than salaries, interests, and dividends. This is where your comparison only on tax brackets breaks down. To compare apples-to-apples, one needs to compare overall tax burden, not just tax brackets.
4. On the Dept. of Ecology, I did mean cut FROM. Sorry for the mistake. Regarding the next part (where you slipped into the bad habit), a cut from Ecology does mean cut in enforcement. Do you understand what Ecology's role even is? They basically have three tasks: education, enforcement, and restoration. Education is really a way of saving costs in the future for both the citizens and for businesses (i.e., less fines from the enforcement arm). Restoration is basically clean up from lack of past enforcement. Ecology has been a big target of Rossi's in the past. You can't really cut Restoration Projects, partly because a lot of the funds come from the Federal Government or collection from past polluters to clean up from the pollution they caused. Education is really a small part of the overall budget, which leaves Enforcement as the area, which would be cut. What will be cut is things like number of inspections (along with inspectors). While this may help short term, just as demonstrated on Wall Street, without oversight we all end up paying more in the end. In the case of environmental issues, it is a lot less costly catching problems up front and fixing them than cleaning up after-the-fact.
5. Finally, on your last point. Reagan didn't win the election by acting like a conservative, as you put it. In 1980, Reagan won because his message hit home with the center. In 1984, he won again because Mondale moved so far left it vacated the center to Reagon. As far as the 1994 Congressional elections, Newt won because of dissatisfaction (Congress moved too far left). If it was conservative ideas the public wanted, then Dole would have won in 1996. He didn't because he abandoned the center for the conservative agenda. The reason the Democrats won in 2006 and are leading today is due to the rightward shift of the Republican party, just as what happened in Great Britan. If the Republican Party thinks going more conservative will win back the center, then they fail to learn the lessons from the Tories in Great Britan.
Posted by: tc on October 28, 2008 12:38 PM"My words are helping to win elections and sway minds."
What proof do you have for this boast? Your style seems quite haughty, alienating, and dilettantish.
"...some of us really are disturbed and a little bit scared...."
Yes, you are scared. Don't be ashamed to admit it; you already wrote it. It's okay to be able to defend your family. Get busy.
Your snide projections are self-defeating: try countering that with humility. Smile more, lose weight, change your clothes more often, and shave.
Posted by: 5.62 on October 28, 2008 12:54 PM
Thank you for only using one "your lying" in the response. Now, if one can just get you off that bad habit totally.
Screw you. You have NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to substantiate your assertion that Dino would cut back on environmental enforcement.
You were lying. I called you on it.
They basically have three tasks: education, enforcement, and restoration.
And you can make cuts in the department without reducing enforcement. Every department has waste, every department can work more efficiently.
You were lying.
You may think he is LIKELY to cut enforcement. That is a fair opinion, though it is not backed up by any evidence. But to assert he WILL do it, without that evidence, is to LIE.
You were lying. And if you continue to maintain he WILL cut enforcement, you will CONTINUE TO LIE.
I won't read the rest of your post, because your lie is sickening me.
I forget when I stopped caring about your opinion, but it was awhile ago.
Posted by: pudge on October 28, 2008 12:59 PMWhile past performance is no measure of future return, history teaches us where redbaiting has previously lead: In 1954, the Watkins Committee recommended that Sen. Joe McCarthy be censured for 2 of 46 counts charged against his actions.
Wow. That's about the dumbest thing you've said here AB, and the competition is stiff.
There is no rational comparison between attacking the substance of someone's stated policies, and playing McCarthy-esque "guilt by association." I was doing the former, and never approached the latter.
McCarthy was never reviled widely for going after commnists in government. He was reviled for his methods.
You should learn more about history. A lot more.
Such petulance! I hope you weren't raised solely by women.
Posted by: 5.62 on October 28, 2008 02:16 PMI disagree with your reading of this passage. He is not advocating that the Warren Court violate the Constitution. He is pointing out that the Warren Court (or any court) is necessarily and correctly constrainted to effect social change due to the concept of "negative liberties". The "tragedy" he speaks of is that the civil rights movement focused too heavily on the courts to bring about a reduction in racism and did not focus enough on working directly with people to effect a "change of heart". When you simply focus on the courts to create social change (such as affirmative action and abortion policies), you end up creating fragile policies - policies that have not been properly debated amongst people and settled through the legislature. "Redistributive change" in this context is more properly understood as the redistribution of power amongst black and white citizenry.
---If he DOES agree with those limitations, then that's even worse: he's saying he agrees with them, but that we should ignore them anyway.
Incorrect. He says that using the courts as a means to effect change is limited because the Constitution is limited. He does not say that we should "ignore" the limits of the Constitution. He is pointing out the proper roles of the legislature and the judiciary. Again, this is a conservative notion - do not use the judciary to create new rights.
---We cannot have a rational discussion about the effectiveness of tax policy without agreeing on the principles behind those policies. Obama wants to raise taxes to effect wealth redistribution, so my response is that while his tax policy might be effective toward that end, it is a violation of the Constitution and is therefore illegal, not to mention immoral, as part of the reason WHY it is unconstitutional is because it violates my right to property.
Raising taxes is in no way a violation of the Constitution, whether you agree with the tax increase or not.
Finally, if you are so concerned about Barack Obama's creeping socialism, why aren't you filing post after post after post regarding the federal government's current response to the breakdown of the financial sector? As we speak, the U.S. government is purchasing stock in selected bank. The U.S. government is becoming an OWNER of private enterprise or, to put it another way, it is nationalizing banks.
Of course, I don't *think* that the government will maintain long-term control (who knows?), but how is it that this crystal clear example of government control of private wealth being shoved to the side in favor of an interview Obama did in 2001? Aren't you worried about the socialism that is happening right now under a Republican administration?
Dude, why are you even responding to 5.62? He's either a troll trying to front like a militia member, or he actually is a militia member, or he is crazy. Perhaps best to ignore or delete comments? Just a suggestion.
In any case, even though I disagree with you on most things, this is an excellent thread and the site is well served when you discuss political philosophy. Which is why I don't want to see it hijacked.
Posted by: zeeb on October 28, 2008 02:20 PMVilifying public figures through guilt by association tactics appealing to the most base fears of Marxist totalitarianism may be a successful short term political tactic but it is resoundingly rebuked in the long term.
I agree. And I never did anything like that, so why bring it up?
Posted by: pudge on October 28, 2008 02:43 PMI disagree with your reading of this passage.
It's ... it's what he said.
He is not advocating that the Warren Court violate the Constitution.
I never said he was. I said: what Obama says is that since the Court wouldn't violate the Constitution, it is up to the civil rights movement to violate the Constitution through other means. That doesn't imply that he thinks the Court should ignore the Constitution (though I think he obviously DOES believe that, since he supports justices who do, including Justice Breyer, who wrote a book, "Active Liberty," explaining why he ignores the Constitution).
He even says that he thinks he could craft a legal justification for the Court to ignore the Constitution, so clearly he's open to the idea, he just thinks it is not a great way to go about it, but if given the chance as President, I have no doubt he will sttack the Court with people who agree with him that the Constitution is to be ignored when it does not suit his purposes.
The "tragedy" he speaks of is that the civil rights movement focused too heavily on the courts to bring about a reduction in racism and did not focus enough on working directly with people to effect a "change of heart".
Exactly ... a change of heart to support his unconstitutional agenda of wealth redistribution.
"Redistributive change" in this context is more properly understood as the redistribution of power amongst black and white citizenry.
No. Just a few moments earlier he used the phrase "redistribution of wealth," and that is the context in which he used "redistributive change." Please, we're not fools.
Incorrect. He says that using the courts as a means to effect change is limited because the Constitution is limited. He does not say that we should "ignore" the limits of the Constitution.
So you're saying that Obama does not understand the 10th Amendment, which is even worse, for a supposed Constitutional scholar. I don't accept your interpretation, but even if I grant it, Obama still loses.
Raising taxes is in no way a violation of the Constitution
I never implied it was. Read again.
Finally, if you are so concerned about Barack Obama's creeping socialism, why aren't you filing post after post after post regarding the federal government's current response to the breakdown of the financial sector?
Because I have other things to do? It's odd that you think you've made a point here.
Aren't you worried about the socialism that is happening right now under a Republican administration?
I've criticized it many, many, many times.
Thanks to G.W. Bush and his incompetent administration, we are over $10 TRILLION in debt. We're spending over 25% of the budget on interest on this debt. Where the hell do you think the new tax revenues are going to go?
So..alternatively, how exactly do you propose to pay down our huge debt? Decreasing taxes on the middle class has far, FAR more affect on government tax revenues, because the money gets spent the economy immediately. On the other hand, its well known that increasing taxes on wealthy individuals does NOT have a significant effect..they tend to buy imported goods, and save their money, rather than spend it.
As for Joe the Plumber, and others like him. They have nothing to worry about..Plumbers don't make $250k+ in taxable income, they average around $45k.
I know plenty of small business owners, and not one that makes close to $250k in TAXABLE income. Right wing nutjobs love to claim that small business have inventory, have to pay salaries, etc. Thats all bullcrap. Those are business expenses, and fully tax deductible. Small business owners ONLY pay federal tax on PROFITS, not revenue.
Except in this state, with the B&O tax, which should be abolished. But thats another topic. :-)
Posted by: Proteus on October 28, 2008 05:26 PMDetente.
In rereading through some of the fine thinking here I would like to posit that the Reagan revolution was nearly socialist itself in intent and execution. In as much as it lauded getting government out of the way it conveniently omitted that selectively providing access to resources is an enabling act.
Supply-side economics implies benefit for the masses distributed through successful "private" economies using enhanced tax breaks and subsidies for the elite captains of industry who take the extreme risks of building economies. It was sold as a method of redistributing wealth across all strata of society according to merit. It was not sold as the right to the simple accumulation and retention of personal wealth. This implied distribution of wealth on merit was encouraged through federal policy and legislation, it did not occur in a vacuum. Reagan and his administration were more like pro-business socialists using policies that paralleled old world socialism but did not mimic the failures of directly nationalizing major industries. That was accomplished through "privatization" or ceding operations to quasi governmental agencies that work closely with the government but are not government. His policies and philosophy succeeded largely due to a push for efficiencies in performance and delivery combined with a dramatic lowering of expectations of federal services that we now use as a standard. The economic successes came through large institutional government engineering and tweaking, not the absence of it, however folksy and empowering the appeal was.
RR also set a yet be matched standard for humor and irony.
You are kidding right? The whole point of your post is to point out that ...
No, you're wrong. I never implied anything about "guilt by association." Every criticism I made about Obama is about his actual views, and the implications of those views.
I would like to posit that the Reagan revolution was nearly socialist itself in intent and execution.
No, it wasn't.
Supply-side economics implies benefit for the masses distributed through successful "private" economies using enhanced tax breaks and subsidies for the elite captains of industry who take the extreme risks of building economies.
Riiiiiight. So letting everyone keep more of what is theirs, is somehow "taking from one person against his will to give it to someone else that it doesn't belong to"?
Pull the other one. If something were being taken from other people to give to "elite captains of industry," you would have a point, but that never happened. So you have no point.
Nice try, but fail.
Posted by: pudge on October 29, 2008 10:56 AMAcid Brain: the economy is not a zero-sum game. If somebody gets rich it does not imply that somebody else got poor.
Trickle-down economics is based on liberty. It is anti-progressive taxation. I agree with you that the trickle-down economics of the past has been implemented poorly in the tax code. A flat tax that everybody pays is the only fair way to fix that problem, but that's beside my point. Trickle-down economics is about liberty from excessive taxation and regulation.
Think of taxation and regulation like this: they are the cost of starting and doing business in our country. If taxes are raised and more regulation imposed, then the cost of starting and doing business goes up. When the cost goes up, less people can participate. How many people can afford a Ferrari? How may can affort a Toyota?
In a world of trickle-down economics, the decrease in taxes and regulation allows more people to start businesses and create jobs. I think with Republicans say "trickle-down" they think Joe the Plumber creating jobs by growing his small business. When Democrats grit their teeth and hiss "trickle-down" they're thinking CEO's with $20 million dollar golden parachutes. Newsflash, there are very few highly paid CEO's and very many Joe the Plumbers out there. Most jobs are created by small business owners.
When the Democrats push for socialism and the redistribution of wealth through taxation and regulation, they are killing the very core of our economy.
When in doubt, vote for more liberty.
Posted by: blindman on October 29, 2008 11:25 PMAgreed, modern economies are not zero sum activities. Agreed, bloated bureaucratic and tax barriers particularly hobble the creation of small business and discourage innovation and risk and retard incentive and initiative.
Even so, one has to ask how the wealth or capital is created or generated. Capital generally does not come into existence out of the unknown. It is generated, or created, and creation requires infrastructure and resources. If we observe capital in a static sense yes it can appear like extortion to remove pieces of it and place them into ownership of another party. However, modern Capital is not static, it is dynamic. It's creation has a cost obligation, both individually and with the commons. Socially and legally we have not yet figured out a sustainable way to assess and distribute the obligation of these costs of doing business while keeping inequity at a minimum. And most of the participants in this great experiment value equity universally above all else, above even the most blase notions of equality. This republic begins and ends with the power derived from its unmatched resources. All participants in the government have meddled with the redistribution of resources and wealth for the entire history of the republic. Sometimes leaning toward the benefit of the few, sometimes for the benefit of the many. Instruments and visions are just quite simply very different by nature.
On my 2008 ballot, James E. Harris & Alyson Kennedy are the Socialist Workers Party Nominees, and Gloria La Riva & Eugene Puryear are the Socialism & Liberation Party Nominees. I'm not voting for either because their visions are not mine. Frankly they're nuts, however well intentioned.
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 30, 2008 01:23 PMPerhaps I should avoid posting at so late an hour so as to avoid my mistakes and your derision, but here I go again...
You said:
" So every dollar over $250,000 is going to seen [sic] an increase of about 12 percentage points, or a 25 percent tax increase, from the current rate (and about 7.5 percentage points above where it was when Clinton left office)."
Your math still does not add up. Perhaps it is you who is "under-informed" (and, from reading what you have written, 'under-grammared').