Obama wants to Redistribute Wealth

[Moonlight Graham]

Republicans are retards if they believe this. The irony is that the so-called "religious right" tends to vote Republican, yet the Republicans are so un-Christ-like when it comes to dealing with poverty in the USA. Why do Republicans hate their fellow citizens so much? It boggles the mind.

You sir have your mind & your heart screwed into the right places. I couldn't agree with you more. Not just Republicans, but many Christian conservatives in Canada also have their heads high up their behinds. Un-Christ like indeed. I'm not overly religious, but i thought the whole point of Christianity is to try and live your life as Jesus did & taught? Jesus certainly wouldn't be a proponent of dog-eat-dog laissez-faire capitalism many conservatives trumpet. Or maybe he would, but certainly expect more of us give to charity and the poor & do more to fight poverty.

I also love the Christian conservative hypocrites who chain themselves to the 2nd Ammendment. Do you think Jesus would own a gun?

I love the Christian conservative hypocrites in favour of corporal punishment. Did Jesus not say "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"?

I love the Christian conservative hypocrites (including Palin) who support the Guantanamo torture rooms, and those Christians (both left & right) that are so eager to bomb the crap out of Muslims & anyone else overseas. Did Jesus not say:

"...Ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39)...Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. (Matthew 5:38-44)

It is all so stupid. Are these not some of THE fundamental teachings of Jesus? Why do some people even bother going to church if they don't even listen?

[noahbody]

There's nothing false about what I've stated Harper's agenda is.

I wasn't aware the Conservative platform had a section titled "Hidden Agenda" or "Adding Stars and Stripes to Canada."

It is common for those with mental illness not to recognize it.

[Kitchener]

Lower taxes means more investment means more jobs means bigger pies for everyone.

That's why the economy just got better and better as GW Bush lowered taxes, until it reached the perfect point it's at now!

Edited November 1, 2008 by Kitchener

[kengs333]

I wasn't aware the Conservative platform had a section titled "Hidden Agenda" or "Adding Stars and Stripes to Canada."

It is common for those with mental illness not to recognize it.

So an elected senate, doing away with the monarchy (ie. making Canada a republic), and deepening North American integration isn't an attempt to make us American? Can you be anymore blind to the truth?

[Topaz]

So an elected senate, doing away with the monarchy (ie. making Canada a republic), and deepening North American integration isn't an attempt to make us American? Can you be anymore blind to the truth?

I agree with you with how this country is headed for the NAU. From what I've read on this topic, the "powers that be" who want this will either threaten or buy the leader of the country they want to change. How many billions would it take to buy a leader? Everyone has their price. The next 20 years will tell the tale if the "power that be" will be able to get the NAU done, when many Canadians and Americans are totally against it!

[noahbody]

So an elected senate,

An elected senate has to do with democracy. Britain is doing the same.

The House of Lords would be replaced by an elected chamber that could be called the Senate under plans being drawn up at Westminster.

Cross-party talks on reforming the Lords are nearing an agreement about replacing most of the existing members of the upper chamber with elected representatives.

The new chamber would be smaller than the Lords, with about half of the current total of 748 members.

In another break with tradition, the new members would be paid an annual salary, probably set somewhere lower than the £60,000 MPs receive.

Labour has struggled with Lords reform since promising a comprehensive overhaul in its 1997 manifesto.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/158...e-of-Lords.html

doing away with the monarchy (ie. making Canada a republic)

Sorry, that's a Liberal concept.

Continuing from the 1960s and 70s, debate on the monarchy remained in the political sphere, though never as a major aspect of it; commentary, for the most part, stayed within parliament or Cabinet. However, in 1998, then-Deputy Prime Minister John Manley brought republican commentary into the public eye when he mused at the end of a television interview that Canada should abolish its monarchy, citing Australia's discussions on the matter, and that if Canada did not replace the monarchy soon, the UK would do so first.[26] Later, just before the Queen's arrival for a pan-country tour to celebrate her Golden Jubilee, Manley, then to be the minister in attendance at the monarch's arrival in Ottawa, again said in an interview that he was in favour of a Canadian citizen as head of state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_the...archy_in_Canada

and deepening North American integration isn't an attempt to make us American?

That's a european concept for starters. By your thinking, the reason the US would deepen North American integration would be to be more Canadian.

Can you be anymore blind to the truth?

Sure, I could be as blind as you are.

[kimmy]

So an elected senate,

Senate reform has been discussed at some point or another by every party, for the obvious reason that the senate is kind of a joke.

doing away with the monarchy (ie. making Canada a republic),

Aside from what noah has just mentioned in regards to John Manley, I'd also point out that discontent over the lavish spending of Adrienne Clarkson and questions about Michaelle Jean's ties to Quebec separatists were not confined to Conservatives, nor were they explicitly calls for the position to be abolished.

Discussions about whether Canada should have a governor general or ties to the monarchy at all have been raised by Canadians of all political stripe at some time or another.

and deepening North American integration isn't an attempt to make us American?

Oh, of course. "It's not about harmonizing standards and practices to enhance trade and travel! There's secret stuff! It's scary! Scary! Scary!"

-k

[msj]

So now Adam Smith from his grave supports Obama?

If you say so, msj.

Only pointing out that even Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation (as did Karl Marx, of course).

[August1991]

Only pointing out that even Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation (as did Karl Marx, of course).

In that quote, Smith specifically refers to a property tax. But look, I'd be quite happy to return to the taxation rates of the 18th century if you can call Smith a "socialist".

Obama's promises go a little bit beyond imposing property taxes:

Once you get past the soaring oratory, to experience a speech by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is to be hit with an astoundingly lengthy list of promises.

"I don't know how any reasonable person" could think he'd really be able to accomplish everything he's pledging to do, said the mother-in-law of a colleague, a Missouri woman who intends to vote for Obama.

Just today in Sarasota, Fla., the Democratic presidential nominee said that he'd:

"give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week";

"eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000";

"give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks";

not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax";

"end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas";

"give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States";

"eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country";

"create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country";

"invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade";

"reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines";

build "a new electricity grid";

"build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow";

"eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years";

"lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance;

"if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves";

"end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most";

"invest in early childhood education";

"recruit an army of new teachers";

"pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability";

"make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts";

"stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus";

"end this war in Iraq";

"finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden";

"increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world";

"invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home";

"No more homeless veterans"; and

"no more fighting for disability payments."

ABC News Blog

As for soaring rhetoric:

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

Link

Pierre Trudeau, Rene Levesque, Winston Churchill and John Kennedy, all remarkable orators, would never say such naive hyperbole and tripe.

----

Obama has raised expectations far beyond what he could ever achieve. Given past experience in such circumstances, the crowd will invariably turn on him.

[Pliny]

Let us not forget that Adam Smith was a socialist too:

The principle that Obama evinced, which most economists would regard as unexceptionable, can be traced to Adam Smith. In “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), his seminal treatise on capitalism, Smith wrote:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Smith’s notion of reasonableness did not anticipate the Fox News Channel, however. Last Tuesday, Wurzelbacher appeared on that network, where he denounced Obama’s comments as “socialist.” He said that Obama “scared me,” because he “wants to distribute wealth.”

Adam Smith - a socialist?

The one thing missing in this claim from his quote is what role the government plays in this redistribution of wealth. He suggests it is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense. He didn't say that government should have first claim on all wealth to ensure the rich contribute to the public expense. It is an obligation and responsibility of the rich and with that I can agree. Socialist governments turn the responsibility into a form of economic enslavement.

[msj]

Adam Smith - a socialist?

The one thing missing in this claim from his quote is what role the government plays in this redistribution of wealth. He suggests it is not unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense. He didn't say that government should have first claim on all wealth to ensure the rich contribute to the public expense. It is an obligation and responsibility of the rich and with that I can agree. Socialist governments turn the responsibility into a form of economic enslavement.

Fair enough.

Perhaps Smith's notion of "public expense" is not the same as the current notion where it infers a government role rather than a church/charity role.

As for enslavement: well, I wouldn't want to be enslaved by the Church anymore than by the State - which is exactly the point of freedom of religion (from religion) and the point of voting in a democracy.

Edited November 2, 2008 by msj

[kengs333]

Senate reform has been discussed at some point or another by every party, for the obvious reason that the senate is kind of a joke.

I think the Conservative (ie. Reform) Party is the only one that has been very vocal about it. The NDP will mention it from time to time, but the Cons actually make an issue about it.

The senate plays a vital role in our democracy, so I find the characterization "a joke" a little unsettling.

Aside from what noah has just mentioned in regards to John Manley, I'd also point out that discontent over the lavish spending of Adrienne Clarkson and questions about Michaelle Jean's ties to Quebec separatists were not confined to Conservatives, nor were they explicitly calls for the position to be abolished.

Personally, I believe that the appointment of those two GGs was an indirect attempt to undermine our Monarchy. Appointing former media personalities unsuited for political life just goes to show how flippant and disrespectful our politicians have become of the very system in which they find their livelihood; sadly most Canadians could not care less.

Clarkson's spending was hardly lavish when it was intended to fulfill her role and promote a distinct Canadian identity. It certainly was nothing compared to the unknown billions that are being wasted in Afghanistan or for bailing out banks that don't need bailing out.

Discussions about whether Canada should have a governor general or ties to the monarchy at all have been raised by Canadians of all political stripe at some time or another.

Yeah, so...?

Oh, of course. "It's not about harmonizing standards and practices to enhance trade and travel! There's secret stuff! It's scary! Scary! Scary!"

-k

I think it's already becoming clear what the consequences of being tied to the American economy are. There are sound economic reasons why deeper integration is a bad idea, but ultimately we should recognize the fact that the United States has never, ever renounced its nearly two century policy of being the dominant force in the Americas. Gaining control over our economy is simply a first step towards political integration.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't really care for the existence of Canada or the need for a distinct Canadian economy and, for that matter, identity, you're more than welcome to apply for American citizenship and go pursue the American dream.

[Mortui]

Just because someone has a few socialist ideas it doesn't mean they're socialist. Even if Obama is socialist, why does it matter? America is socialist for God's sake. We have numerous socialist programs in place-which many people are pretty damn thankful for. There's nothing wrong with a little socialism. It boggles my mind that people are so afraid of something so harmless. But either way you look at it, the American economy is in a downward spiral. By the way, how did we get out of this in the Great Depression?

[Hcheh]

Just because someone has a few socialist ideas it doesn't mean they're socialist. Even if Obama is socialist, why does it matter? America is socialist for God's sake. We have numerous socialist programs in place-which many people are pretty damn thankful for. There's nothing wrong with a little socialism. It boggles my mind that people are so afraid of something so harmless. But either way you look at it, the American economy is in a downward spiral. By the way, how did we get out of this in the Great Depression?

you speak the truth. Just because you exhibit some socialist characteristics, it doesn't make you a socialist. Take some good ideas from different political ideologies and you may get something that works. People shouldn't be so afraid of taking bits from different forms of government.. Besides, our (Canadian) policies are a lot more socialist than the policies of the United States

[Mr.Canada]

you speak the truth. Just because you exhibit some socialist characteristics, it doesn't make you a socialist. Take some good ideas from different political ideologies and you may get something that works. People shouldn't be so afraid of taking bits from different forms of government.. Besides, our (Canadian) policies are a lot more socialist than the policies of the United States

Well what does a socialist make?

I should you could say the same thing for Lenin as well. Does that make it so? Of course not.

[Mortui]

Well what does a socialist make?

I should you could say the same thing for Lenin as well. Does that make it so? Of course not.

So we'll say Obama is a socialist. He knows moderation though. Instituting some socialist policies to help get the country back on track isn't a bad thing. He's not making our entire system socialist. He's suggesting using the resources at our disposal to help the people that need help.

[Mr.Canada]

So we'll say Obama is a socialist. He knows moderation though. Instituting some socialist policies to help get the country back on track isn't a bad thing. He's not making our entire system socialist. He's suggesting using the resources at our disposal to help the people that need help.

I hope he can do it while being fiscally responsible. The man has good ideas for sure, he's just not clear on the funding.

[noahbody]

I think the Conservative (ie. Reform) Party is the only one that has been very vocal about it. The NDP will mention it from time to time, but the Cons actually make an issue about it.

Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I have long been an advocate of Senate reform. However I do not believe that doing Senate reform piecemeal would bring us the desired result.

What it could quite well do is simply exacerbate a number of the problems. What I think we should do is look at Senate reform but look at it in its entirety.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/P...rl=38&Ses=1

Harper's proposed changes were too modest for Martin.

Edited November 3, 2008 by noahbody

[Sir Bandelot]

Canada is far more socialist than the United States. Thanks to socialism we now have a 40 hour work week, lunch breaks, vacations, sick leave. Aside from the obvious examples of national health care, unemployment insurance. Socialism helped to build this country. See Tommy Douglas (voted the greatest Canadian of all time), crown corporations, the bill of rights.

Edited November 3, 2008 by Sir Bandelot

[msj]

An interesting, albeit not as political, look at redistribution:

Equitable and Efficient Redistribution

[GostHacked]

I hope he can do it while being fiscally responsible. The man has good ideas for sure, he's just not clear on the funding.

No one can be clear on the funding. Judging by the recent financial crisis, and where all THAT mony came from, no matter who it is in office, Obama or McCain will have a tough time getting money for the projects they think are the most important. Both will have to raise taxes in some ways. Two wars plus a financial crisis can really put the country in a bind. We clearly saw that unfold right before our eyes.

If we can bail out the banks, why can't we bail out everyone?

Mr. Canada

I should you could say the same thing for Lenin as well. Does that make it so? Of course not.

Althought Communism has aspects of socialism in it, you still cannot equate socialism to communism. So poor Lenin is left on the sidelines for this conversation.

[Shady]

So poor Lenin is left on the sidelines for this conversation.

Lenin might be, but Marx sure isn't.

Obama wants to "give" 95% of working Americans an income tax cut, even though 40% of working Americans don't pay income tax, and only recently added the work provision in his plan, after taking heat for there not being one.

[Pliny]

Just because someone has a few socialist ideas it doesn't mean they're socialist. Even if Obama is socialist, why does it matter? America is socialist for God's sake. We have numerous socialist programs in place-which many people are pretty damn thankful for. There's nothing wrong with a little socialism. It boggles my mind that people are so afraid of something so harmless. But either way you look at it, the American economy is in a downward spiral. By the way, how did we get out of this in the Great Depression?

Socialism is a process. It is not stagnant and does not lose ground once gained. It is a process toward first the nanny state and once the accomplishment of a single central authority is realized, either in it's right wing dictatorial form or it's left wing politburo form, it becomes the totalitarian state.

You may laugh at this but the US is the last place where anyone has any fear of big government. It is the last place where any warnings about the tyranny of government can be heard. The statement that, "There's nothing wrong with a little socialism." is really losing sight of the reason the US exists in the first place. It was born out of a resistance to tyrannical and overbearing government. You are asking to cease vigilance as it is in your view unnecessary. Government is benign and benevolent. It doesn't seem that was the message of the Founders of the Constitution- well perhaps some, like Hamilton, who was a monetarist, but for the most part George Washington summed up the concensus at the tim when he said, "Government is not reason, it is force. Like fire it is at best a reluctant servant and at worst a tyrannical master."

Barack Obama's economic plan are the exact same steps government took before the Great Depression. John McCain's economic plan isn't much better except for being a little bit less interventionist. The great depression was continued on by policies of the Roosevelt administration. Fortunately war interrupted the socialistic trend of the US and Nazism and Communism sullied the ideology in North America to a degree but it seems by your statements here it was only a stopgap measure as vigilance is once again lost to indifference.

Are we going to get a surprise tomorrow, election day?

[Pliny]

Canada is far more socialist than the United States. Thanks to socialism we now have a 40 hour work week, lunch breaks, vacations, sick leave. Aside from the obvious examples of national health care, unemployment insurance. Socialism helped to build this country. See Tommy Douglas (voted the greatest Canadian of all time), crown corporations, the bill of rights.

Yes. It is more socialist. Thank you for noticing. Most Canadians don't even notice there is any socialism here.

Socialism helped to build the government and the economic morass we face today.

Do we need a 40 hour work week,lunch breaks vacations, sick leave, unemployment insurance? I am self-employed so I get none of them. I still pay for others to get them though. Ok- My choice. The option is to settle into a nice career with benefits already entrenched as entitlements. National healthcare? Since when did the most expensive per capita and mediocrely-rated system in the world become in demand? Oh yeah 1967, I think. Thanks Tommy! ( I would expect a socialist country to have socialist heroes - Greatest Canadian of all time - I picked Gretzky, not a politician) The bill of rights. oh thank you for giving us those rights, Mr Trudeau - I am so indebted to government now - I'm forwarding another check to Ottawa right away because I feel guilty and need to share.

[Pliny]

An interesting, albeit not as political, look at redistribution:

Equitable and Efficient Redistribution

Nice, short and concise.

Imbalances in payment, such as gross and indecent incomes and severance packages tell me there is something wrong with the economic system. What could it be? Perhaps the idea that a fiat currency backed by nothing is considered wealth? Something related to value is out of balance, I think.