After my browser ate my reply I re-wrote a shorter version only to have my computer crash as I clicked preview post, so here’s my third attempt which will probably be even shorter than the last because I’m tired of fighting against technology.
Dowaco wrote:3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. As a definition of socialism how does this not fit the vision Obama has for the US?
How does that not fit into the progressive taxation system currently in use by the US?
What I see in his tax plan is a further schism between wealthy and poor in terms of benefit derived versus effort expended. The current system already "spreads the wealth" Obama's plan simply exaggerates it even more.
The idea that there is a direct correlation between benefit to effort is ludicrous. Warren Buffet does not work 500 times harder than someone holding two minimum wage jobs, because that is simply not possible. This isn’t a dig at Mr. Buffet who has earned his fortune and benefited many in the process, it is a dig at the notion that progressive tax systems are inherently unfair, which is what you seem to be implying. I really don’t want to get dragged in a debate about the relative merits of progressive taxation versus something like a flat tax, since neither candidate is loony enough to try to implement a flat tax (Ron Paul, lol).
In general the view that a low Gini coefficient, or a balanced distribution of wealth and a large middle class, is beneficial for the economy is orthodox amongst economists. Who,
by the way, support Obama by overwhelming margins..
Its not at all far fetched to say that Obama believes in a tax and spend approach benefiting his constituency while McCain believes in tax and spending cuts, benefiting his constituency. The problem I have is that increasing taxes ALWAYS leads to a slower economy. Its a quick fix with long term harm to the country.
This is patently false. Higher taxes, while politically unpopular, help with things like swelling current account deficits and budgets running deep in the red. Bush’s tax cuts were disastrous for the economy and back in 2004
McCain had the stones to say so. The new-but-possibly-not-improved McCain wants to extend them.
If you are going to link a YouTube video as proof, at least pick ones that agree with your statement.
Don’t think of it as a youtube video, think of it as an excerpt from an interview. If the fact that it’s hosted on youtube offends you, I can download it, re-encode it, and upload it to a different host.
just kidding I wouldn’t do that
Both Kissinger and Albright agree with McCain that the President of the United States should not sit down and talk with leaders of nations that have been designated as terrorists states as a first plan of action. They agree (as do both McCain and Obama) that negotiations are always useful. However, Obama did say in a Democratic primary debate that he would personally talk with these type leaders "without preconditions". Hillary Clinton then gave a more intelligent response. Obama has since backed off of that statementand Biden, who was also at the debate, now denies that Obama ever said such a thing. (But it is on tape) The incident shows that Obama has no idea how to approach foreign policy (and also why he picked Biden as a running mate) and would indeed be learning on the job.
I spent a half an hour trying to google up statements of McCain calling for secretary-level talks with Iran prior to the Kissinger interview, but I came up blank. Instead I found some statements of him talking about appeasement.
The NYT:
McCain Agrees With Bush’s Remarks on Appeasement
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Senator John McCain, who has been critical of President Bush on the environment and other policies this week, on Thursday morning wholeheartedly endorsed Mr. Bush’s veiled rebuke in the Israeli Knesset of Senator Barack Obama that talking to “terrorists and radicals” was no different than appeasing Hitler and the Nazis.
“Yes, there have been appeasers in the past, and the president is exactly right, and one of them is Neville Chamberlain,” Mr. McCain told reporters on his campaign bus after a speech in Columbus, Ohio. “I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home.”
Asked if he thought that former President Jimmy Carter, who struggled with the hostage crisis, was an appeaser, Mr. McCain replied: “I don’t know if he was an appeaser or not, but he terribly mishandled the Iranian hostage crisis.”
Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, “I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.”
Mr. McCain’s aides, some of whom used to work for Mr. Bush, said they had not coordinated with the White House on Mr. Bush’s remarks and that they were not aware of what the president was going to say in the Knesset.
Mr. Obama’s campaign sent out the following statement in response.
This seems further from Kissinger's views than Obama.
