You need to put some meat on those arguments that the Democratic candidate is a socialist or that he will lead USA to socialism, otherwise it all sounds like it’s panic time, whether interested or not.

First of all, any country that pursued the “socialist ideal” ended up implementing real socialism, which was communism = state ownership. I’ve never heard any of the candidates even hinting at this possibility, let alone seriously proposing anything to this effect (barring some necessary and temporary measures to fight the current crisis). It would be suicidal to their campaign, given America’s past and present as the brand of capitalism in the world. There’s no point in going backwards, when other countries which used to rely on state-controlled economies are now moving towards allowing more space for competition and private involvement. In my opinion, a socialist mentality is never going to thrive in the USA, which is a country primarily built on Protestant values (you should put Karl Marx to rest and read more Max Weber).

Progressive taxation, which is a social democrat type of policy in the modern sense (not a socialist policy), doesn’t mean that the state will increase its share of GDP or that it will control the market forces. It means that it will redistribute the fiscal burden on different shoulders and/or differently on the same shoulders. That’s not socialism. How could it be considering that public revenue in the US as a percentage of GDP is a lot smaller than in most developed capitalist countries (~27%, compared to most European countries, where the level of levied taxes goes beyond 35% of GDP)?

I live in a country with a flat tax system and I think it’s very good for public finances because it reduces operating costs to a great degree. I’m on equal footing with big companies on direct taxation basis, but are we really equal players? They can afford to operate offshore and save more money than most wage earners will ever make. Are they doing it because of the gross unfairness of the taxation system? Duh – not! More capital means more means to multiply it, more fancy lifestyles, more ambitions, more of what we know human nature to be when it gets more. I’m not a left-wing animal but I don’t like this way of looking at people only as losers and winners. The most striking attitude that you and a few other have shown here is considering people only from an economic point of view. I won’t criticise this attitude, because I think it’s part of the problem right now with the status quo and it will die by itself. Think about having shy kids and watching them compete against less hard-working or smart kids who are more outgoing. Your kids will be so anxious sometimes that they may underperform compared to the kids who use best their endowment without much hesitation. So this winners-losers equation is really missing the point about people’s potentials. You have to ask yourself what makes a loser a loser and a winner a winner before jumping to conclusions. Unless you think that they are born losers. People are not born the same, that’s for sure, but can we integrate more and more of them? I think that is far more important than just bickering over who should pay a bit more or get a bit more. The future is about increasing inclusion and interaction, and reducing self-centredness; you seem to focus on yourself in your arguments.

Secondly, both McCain and Obama are well-off enough to not be suspected of having a socialist mindset. I don’t see how Obama, who is making millions from selling his books right now, could really believe in state ownership and greater state intervention in the economy. You can call him aloof, unexperienced, elitist, but not socialist. Personally, if I were Joe the Plumber I would have insisted more on what his opinion is on the flat tax. He got away too easily on that question.

I’ve lived under a communist regime in Eastern Europe and I have to tell you that you couldn’t be more wrong. Socialism being imposed or not, it doesn’t make the system any better than it never was. What happened was quite simple: it didn’t work out in economic terms, it collapsed. Products were not competitive on the international markets, so they were shipped on the markets of partner countries from the communist bloc, based on bilateral agreements, or disposed of in dumping practices. Productivity was low because there was not enough competition to allow innovation and creation of higher value-added goods. I could go on about this for the next few weeks, but I will say that in general, living conditions were poor, information was controlled and there was very little freedom. You won’t be enjoying the same cool lifestyle listening to the music you like, meeting the people you want, travelling wherever you need to. The party controls what comes in the country, what is being sold, whom you are not allowed to meet. There was never any “socialism” anywhere, it always fails to deliver and degenerates into communism and totalitarianism. You end up living in a controlled country, dreaming about being free one day. Don’t listen to the sirens, they are illusions of wellbeing.

Maybe if you lived your entire life in a capitalist country, you are fed up with the massive scale individualism and indifference that alienates people and you find life is drawn to where it can thrive, to the exotic places you’ve never been before. Maybe I, having lived under that regime, find the newfound freedom a lot more attractive than it really is. But you can compare the facts: how people lived in a “socialist” republic and how people live in a capitalist country, whether it’s a monarchy or a republic. In a communist country, the working class lived far better than the economy afforded, but were still poorer than most of the workers in your country. You think there was a greater feeling of fairness? People who worked using their intellect were not so favoured by the regime, which ideologically supported blue collars and suspected the more intellectually capable of being able to think for themselves, criticising handling of public issues and plotting against the party. But there was a feeling that being smarter or more capable didn’t pay more, unless you became one of the party yes-men, siding with the nomenklatura of oppressors.

Let’s not talk about socialism with Sweden in mind. It’s a 9-milion people country, which is a lot less than what you’ve got in the metropolitan area of London or Paris. They have been moving away from the welfare state policies for many decades now, anyway. Socialism is a false theme in this US election, in my opinion, created by fear-mongering and used for fear-mongering.

USSR fell primarily for three reasons: 1) Oil prices went down; 2) Arms race got too expensive for them as a result of the oil prices going down and 3) people got fed up with being told what to do by a party that killed so many of their compatriots and threw them out of the power.

Socialism is just the next step of the man’s evolution. No wonder the greatest quality of life can be found in the countries that evolved into socialist societies themselves, not through imposition of others.

I hope Obama wins… and I can’t wait to see even more business move overseas.

idiots

…sheesh

M.

“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]”
“Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs”

Are you telling me this isn’t what Obama is talking about? Are you telling me that spread the welath arround isn’t this? That scares me how close to this definition is the Democratic party of today. It scares me that your party have chosen a guy who is the leader in that matter.And what scares me the most is how many people believe in this crap. If you don’t think our society is going down this path, think again. Do a research on the new goverment regulations, fees, and new taxes for the last 50 years. Every time a democratic (I means party, because by definition, I don’t think your party is that anymore) goverment is elected is when the goverment grows and take more control. New agencies are created with a new army of bureocrats to decide on our lives. I deduct by your comments you like and desire this kind of goverment where everything will be regulated and all problems solved via endless litigations. You like and welcome more taxes for your fellow countrymen in order to pay others “less affortunated”. You think it is best for the country that goverment take everytime more control and grow more. You have the right to think that and to defend your oppinion. However, let me tell you that “socialist” experiment hasn’t worked in any place in the world.
Sarah wrote:
“Her hunger to drill for oil instead of investing time into sources of alternative energy is a huge political position and one that, again, I find myself in gross contrast with”
I believe that McCain is talking about drilling for oil, building new nuclear plants, invest more in alternative fuels, including solar, wind, geo, etc. The only thing different is you guys don’t want to drill in any place. No because we don’t need oil, but because you want to destroy “evil big oil companies”, Isn’t that right? What republicans are tellingi s that all infrastructure for oil is in place and we have the reserves right here. We have no time to wait until all wind mill are in place and online. Let alone the cost to implement those technologies is very high compared to what we already have. Do you know Cuba is leasing to China and other countries drilling licences to drill just a few miles off the coast of Florida? Do you know they will use horizontal drilling? what means they will be sucking oil from under our feets.Do you think China and the cubans will be more concerned with the environment than us? So, if they will do it, why you guys are so reluctant to let US companies to tap in that reserves? Can you give me an logical explanation why. It doesn’t make any sense at all unless your motives are to destroy our industry because they represent evil “Bush administration”?
Sarah wrote:
“The lady, and I believe her running mate as well, wants personal power with very little actual desire to be a humble Public Servant.”
And your guy and your party isn’t? What you call humble public servant? Only to the democrtas? Give me a break.
Sarah wrote:
“How dare she go out in public with a Polar Bear pin attached to her lapel when she is known to aim at restricting their protection and destroying their habitat.”

How she even dare to think about running for VP? That is the question you guys are really thinking. How she dare to do what she do. How close you thinking is from a totalitarist. You guys really think whoever think different is a moron? Dissenting is not a word in your dictionary? I know you guys rather see everybody running bicycles than disturbing poor polar bear habitat.
Sarah wrote:
“Quick, someone develop a Hybrid Snowmobile so she can be swayed!”
I bet you drive a toyota prius. Do you know you will get better mileage with a compact diesel than with a gas hybrid? But you want to feel good because you are doing the “right thing”. Do you want another example how stupid goverment subsides are? In order to please environmentalists goverment implemented a $1/ gallon of biodiesel and ethanol subsides. Now the corn prices are up because biodiesel plants will pay more than animal feed factories. Then, cattle ranches will no longer have food for their cows, then less caws, then less meat at the supermarket, then higer prices. In no time meat will cost more than gold. Holly smokes!! I guess you are vegetarian and eat tofu. right?. So you will have no problem with meat prices.
Elect Obama and we will be paying 10 bucks a gallon at the pump. By the time all your hydrogen cars and your wind mills are working , the arabs and hugo chaves had eaten us alive.

I don’t think he aims to take away the public’s opportunity to make their own independent way and to be successful – perhaps he wants us to be accountable to our own fellow citizens. There is almost no community responsibility anymore as the Boomers have turned from drippy hippy Flower Power to Outsourcing Selfism and I think that’s where this motivation to “spread things around” a little bit comes from. Nature, People, Economies, all need balance. That’s what the plan takes aim at.

FAC – I’ve hardly mentioned all the reasons that I dislike Sarah Palin and her ‘policies’, choosing instead to just have a bit of fun with her, but believe me, the list is long. Being a hunter and offering $150 rewards for severed Wolf paws (Pro-Life, indeed) is very closely related to her political views and illustrate how she likes to wield her political power. Her hunger to drill for oil instead of investing time into sources of alternative energy is a huge political position and one that, again, I find myself in gross contrast with. The lady, and I believe her running mate as well, wants personal power with very little actual desire to be a humble Public Servant.
How dare she go out in public with a Polar Bear pin attached to her lapel when she is known to aim at restricting their protection and destroying their habitat.

Quick, someone develop a Hybrid Snowmobile so she can be swayed!

I fear I’m beating the proverbial dead horse, so I’ll just end with a favorite quote from Civil Disobedience. I’m sure Thoreau would find fault with both candidates on the grounds that any government regulations would be ‘meddling’ in our individual rights. Perhaps he is right.

“The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to,-for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well,- is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellowmen. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which I have also imagined, but not yet seen.” – Henry David Thoreau