Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Defending the socialist claim


Recommended Posts

Many people making claims that Senator Obama is a socialist. They have clamed that his plans for the country have some correlation with Karl Marx idea of socialism. They depicted him as being a socialist because he has pronounced that he wants to spread the wealth around. To be clear on the subject, I looked up the true definition of a socialist state. According to WICKIPEDIA, a socialist state is described as such: sharing the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society and that all socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society. Base on this definition, I honestly don’t see how some people can make such clam. It is true that Senator Obama has mentioned occasionally that “McCain wants to give tax cut to rich corporations hoping somehow prosperity will trickle down on us” but that’s not promoting socialism, that’s promoting fairness. The idea that the economy must be built from the bottom up to me is not a socialist idea, it’s a common sense idea. You don’t start building a five story building from top to bottom; you start by building the foundation first. Our problem in this country is that we let other countries build our foundation for us by giving them our factories. If we no longer produce how can we compete in a global market? It would appear to me that Obama’s view by building the economy from the bottom up is to give some of the richest corporations in America leverage. Those corporations can only survive as long as our foundations are strong enough to support their weight …so it’s really one hand washes the other. The middle class can’t do without the corporations just as the corporations can’t do without the middle class.


According to the idea of socialism in relation to our constitution, can we truly admit that a socialist state is possible? Since people are clamming that Obama is a socialist, perhaps we ought to simulate the possibility of that in regard to our constitution in order to draw a conclusion. In another word can a socialist state exist under our constitution? I am confident that many people on this forum would admit that Senator Obama is not against the idea of the rich getting richer. He’s against the idea of the rich getting richer at the expense of our policies that enrich some corporations while exploiting our tax payers. If people who stands against this idea of unfairness can be name socialist then I guest this election will see a lots of socialist voters.


Here is a candidate who said “The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again.” I would rather be call a socialist then to make the statement in the above quote. There is a logical error in that statement because to look to the past for solutions that have failed us before is the process of learning from our mistakes. We look to the past to compare so that we can better prepare ourselves for future occurrences but not to carry over the same solutions. As they say those who don’t know their past are likely to repeat it ……don’t take this the wrong way …. I sprayed water but I didn’t wet anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wealth distribution in this country is messed up already and it will only get worse under McCain. It's not because "capitalism sucks" it's because there are holes in the system that protect the rich because of special interests and the gamesmanship it takes to get things through in Wasington. The economy will continue to get worse until we fix the underlying roots of the problems, especially as outsourcing catches up with us when foreign countries make higher quality goods cheaper than the US.


Mccain is all over Obama because of taxes, but there are TAX BREAKS under Obama for people like you and me with incomes under a certain amount, it's the rich that would get hit.


And if you think about it from a practical view taxing the rich is the easiest way to do it. They have the money to actually pay instead of owing the government back taxes (and getting charged interest they'll probably never be able to pay off anyway) plus you have the added bit that taxing a rich guy an additional 1-2% of his income adds a lot more tax revenue than taxing someone in the middle class an additional 1-2%...


2% of a $2,000,000 income is $40,000 more tax revenue


2% of a $50,000 income is $1,000 more tax revenue.


and the stock market is going to continue to struggle because of funds (for rich guys) that make their investors rich by short selling stocks they don't own and buying them back later. That makes the stock price go down, and it's a bet it will go down. If all these funds do that, the stock price keeps goign down, and only the people who aren't in these funds will get burned. Until they fix this or the economy itself, it will stay the same or get worse, it's just the way it is. We can't look at America as in a vaccum anymore, we aren't special, we aren't entitled, we're just another country, a prominent one, but we can't have the attitude we're special otherwise we're just going to wind up with the rest of the world hating us. Unfortunately too many people think that, even these days with things being what they are.


And you need strong lower and middle classes, because that is how the rich make their money, off their consumerism. The rich run businesses, own things. The middle and working classes are the ones that go to work and get a paycheck, only depending on doing their job. They're dependent on the rich for wages. But by weakening the lower and middle classes the whole system gets messed up because the rich don't make as much money from consumerism and they're forced to cut jobs - from the middle and lower classes, which just makes it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I have to say is just stoke the fire and maybe some people will get burned. Someone's on a dying ship and he doesn't want to be looked at as the one who drilled the holes. All in all, someone screwed up his campaign with the wrong sort of people looked at to run it and now all they can scrounge up is the same tactics in an attempt to gain some more votes.


Desperation leads people to do disgusting things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If senator McCain wants to refer to Barack Obama’s tax cut to the middle class as wealth redistribution so be it. I certainly don’t see how McCain can help corporate America by cutting capital gain tax. It’s like putting Bandage to a wound instead of treating it first. Every business that makes it big had to start somewhere. Most often when we look back we noticed that it’s always the small businessman or the hard working middle class Americans who got tired working for someone else profit who come up with an idea to start their business. I’ll give you a perfect example …Procter & Gamble fortune 500, American global corporation based in Cincinnati, Ohio …one of the battleground states which Senator Obama is going to win. According to WIKIPEDIA, William Procter was a candle maker, and James Gamble a soap maker, both men immigrants from England and Ireland who had married two sisters. This is a perfect example why we should consider Obama’s idea of tax cut to small business and middle class Americans. When you do that, you’re given a helping hand to small entrepreneurs who otherwise would have had a barrier to entry into their industry of preference. Proctor & Gamble had an idea and a chance to start their own business so why not passes on that chance to all Americans with an entrepreneur mentality.


In previous replies, I talked about building the foundation and that you don’t start building a five story building from top to bottom. You must start from building the foundation first. You built the foundation by creating skillful jobs rights here in America that can’t be outsource. In this picture, your foundations are the low and middle class Americans. Those are the people who will be use as support beams to help hold our fortune five hundred companies under great economic distress. I mean I should know because I’m probably the only one here who drove a cement truck. This is how you help our corporations. You’re not helping them when you give them tax cut that can easily be use up when face with tight budgeting. Like I said before, it’s one hand washes the other. The corporations need the middle class to keep working just as much as the middle class need the corporations to create jobs and keep exporting.


Senator Obama has no intention to control the wealth; he’s in fact creating opportunity by making it possible for small entrepreneur to start their business. He is creating an opportunity for the big corporations by creating jobs that can’t be outsource to other foreign countries. Those skillful workers who held those jobs are the support beams of corporate America. Come on people, we’re not a bunch of imbecile. We know how former president Clinton left office. It’s written in the records with a big surplus sign next to it. And what do we got now, a double negative. Wait let me guest McCain is not George W. Bush; we shouldn’t compare him with President Bush. Well, it’s hard to tell because last time Senator Obama asked McCain to differentiate himself from Mr. George W. Bush he couldn’t think of anything to say. I’m sorry to say but Americans are looking for a change this time around. Senator McCain is a man all Americans should be respected, he serve our country a great deal and he has the scars to prove it. As an American, I’m proud of him and I will always respect him as a government servant and a civilian. However though, I have reason to believe that he’s not ready to govern us into prosperity. The major concern to me are the current state of the economy, I would like to see it improve. The war in Iraq which we’re not profiting from, foreign policy because I’d like to see us being like again and women’s right for equality on all aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.