US General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Remove all ads!

Intellectual rot is the right term

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, the phrase "intellectual rot" actually consists of two words.

Other than that, I'll have to wait until I get home before I pass judgement on this video, as I can't see it here.

 

Wow, she is pretty far out. I don't know what McCarthyism sounded like, but I would not be surprised if it was kinda like that.

Overall, however, claiming that the US is currently run by the most liberal administration in history (0:50 or so), or that Tony Rezko is a member of the far left (5:30), makes me think she is insane, clueless, and/or shamelessly lying through her teeth. No more, no less.

 

The Republican outrage at itself continues:

Source: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html

This a fractured, broken party. It's pretty obvious what will happen if McCain loses: The party will reset itself. But what if Mac wins? Where will that leave things with the rebels within the party?

 

I have my doubts the party will reset itself. Since McCain isn't a "true conservative" according to much of the GOP, they may use it as an excuse to double down on the crazy.

There's a topic I'd like to start on this very question, but I'm trying to wait 2 more weeks...

 

For those who don't know who Ayers is.

 

That was the most ridiculous piece of melodramatic crap I have seen in a long time.

 

For those who don't know who Michele Obama really is.



You've been warned, America.

 

A pipe bomb would have killed more than the Oklahoma federal building? "They killed others..." yes, three of their own members when a bomb accidentally exploded.

The fact is, Ayers never served any time in prison and is now a college professor. If he is a terrorist why isn't he in Gitmo ? Why did a former Nixon-appointed ambassador give his charity $50 million to improve schools? Why did Republicans -- including some who have donated to McCain's campaign -- sit on the charity board of directors alongside Obama?

If simply sitting on the same board with Ayers makes Obama a "pal" of terrorists, what's that make Annengberg, the guy who gave him $50 million? And what's that make the people who donated money to McCain's campaign? Should he give that back? Shouldn't McCain be questioning their judgment as well?

If signing the $850 billion bailout makes Obama a socialist, what's that make McCain who signed it as well?

 

Personally, I thought McCain's idea of "buying" mortgages was more typically left-wing than Obama's tax credits. YMMV

 

If Obama was radically left, he'd be in favor of something like this.

No one important went there. No one. Which says it all as far as 'omg ultrasocialist democrats' goes.

 

Wait, this is supposed to be some ultra-socialist measure? Giving vouchers ( of unspecified value and active only for foreclosed or foreclosure-threatened homes) to the lower to lower-middle class? Good grief, this means that every public housing fund (and I think the US might have had a few of those itself) is probably Marxism incarnate. That's not that different from McCain's idea to purchase mortgages - in fact McCain's plan may be more inclusive and could allow the government to do that much more*. The only thing that the "Trickle-up plan" has on it in terms of "socialism" is that specifically targets the lower-income classes. No offense, AMaster, but that's not socialism - it would be a lukewarm social democracy at most.

Please forgive me if this is presumptious, but I doubt how much of a clue some people have about what socialism is or entails. A communist, and possibly even a socialist, government simply needn't work through the market, which is what essentially the voucher program would do. Neither would it be bound to recognize the legitimacy of the companies, banks etc that hold the mortgages. Most of the mechanisms proposed so far, I believe, seek to act through the market and thus preserve the forces operating on it. That is simply not a presumption that socialist governments imo share; it is more typical of social democracies (which do consciously use market methods for social means), but even they need not limit themselves to working through the market alone).

*: by the way, McCain's plan was surprisingly left-leaning imo, especially for the US. For all the supposed safeguards that may (not) be included, purchasing people's mortgages can give the state a fair bit of control over the land and buildings themselves. Sure, it probably wouldn't be abused - same as, oh, secret wiretaps, Guantanamo, welfare programs... The only way McCain could get away with it is that it is his party mates who say who is the socialist or the anti-American in Washington.

 

For the record, Government taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is typically called wealth redistribution, and is one of the central premises of Marxism. Only one, yes, but it is one. In that sense, Obama's tax ideas obviously have socialist leanings. In that spirit, there are some good things about limited socialism, some of which we practice today. There are also some bad things about any socialism, some of which we practice today. Just to clear things up.

Sir Fink, the fact is, when talking about it, Ayers has (somewhat recently) said,"Guilty as hell, free as a bird, what a great country!" Jail time or no, he's confessed.

 

NOG,
just out of curiosity: Do you know any form of taxation that is not redistribution of wealth?

 

So is taking from the middle-class and giving to the rich corporations, something which goes on as well. Is that "socialist."

 

Any sort of government intervention in the economy, whether to re-distrubute wealth, prop up a troubled industry, or even to regulate prices, is socialist in a sense, as IMHO socialism means government involvement in the economy (as opposed to capitalism, which says the government should stay the heck out of the marketplace and let the "invisible hand" control the flow of goods and services).

Being Canadian, I have no problem with some government influence in the marketplace, primarily in the form of consumer protection from price gouging. But in the US, bringing up the spectre of socialism summons images of communism to many, which is sadly unfair in my opinion, as communism is complete government control of all elements of the economy, something that is simply not going to happen in the US -- or Canada, for that matter.

Really, McCain and Obama had no choice -- they both had to support some form of government intervention or watch the economy swirl down the toilet.

 

I agree with Rags that all taxation is redistribution of wealth. And Obama isn't really raising taxes that much - for income earned over $250K, the federal tax rate would be 39% as opposed to the current 36%. (By means of comparison, the top tax rate during the Clinton years was 38% - so it's 1% higher than that. Also for means of comparison the federal tax rate during the Reagan years for people earning over $250K was 50%. Reagan - we always knew he was a filthy socialist redistributing all that wealth!)

 

I'm not sure that framework is completely valid - government "intervention" existed long, long before socialism or, for that matter, capitalism (as a philosophy) was developed. Any organization of society puts some (more or less, stingent on loose) regulations on social activity; trade and work are such activities. Pure market capitalism is a utopia (or distopia), just like pure communism. Maybe for the better.

In strictly theoretical terms, socialism's central tenet is public ownership of the productive resources; capitalism relies on open competition for the same. Thus, the two are opposed. However, a government can act in order to secure the resources - not for the general public, but for a certain part/interests. Thus, we would have an oligarchy of sorts. It may pretend to follow socialist teachings or market postulates, but still aims to consolidate resources within a certain group rather than the entire society.

In practice, however, systems tend to gravitate between the three. No system can ignore the danger of appearing illegitimate to large groups of society, nor can it completely ignore the market interactions (and afaik not even the USSR, back in its day, did - it just tried to approach them in a different manner). Likewise, I doubt there is a system that redistributes resources in a completely egalitarian manner and does not prioritize certain groups. Practical solutions tend to be piecemeal ones - a bit of taxes here, some market incentives or lassez-faire there, throw our guys a bone...

I am, generally, very wary of calling Obama (or, for that matter, other US policians) socialists. First of all, what would pass for socialism in the US is a very subjective matter - and imo neither Obama nor anyone else in the US mainstream qualifies as a mostly socialist. Second, due to historical reasons, the term carries a very strong (negative) connotation and is associated with other affiliations the candidate probably won't share. It's a political accusation, just like tying him to terrorists, radicals, etc that tries to delegitimize any ideas that he may espouce - whether or not these ideas are actualy particularly left-leaning or (im)practical given the current situation.

 

Actually, the top tax rate under Clinton was 39.6%.

 

Oh, certainly.