You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Accusation of Socialism a Hollow Argument
Follow RFO:
You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Accusation of Socialism a Hollow Argument
© 2011, Republicans for Obama - About - TOS and Privacy Policy - 
RepublicansforObama.org is not affiliated with the Obama Presidential Campaign
Oh, I saw that this morning. I LOVE GERGEN (and apparently I'm not the only one).
Hmm... let's guess who he's really voting for?
It's fun to ask trolls why Obama is "socialist". It doesn't always shut them up though, because they try and switch subjects and attack on some other front. The trick is to hold their feet to the fire and insist they answer. That's when things fall apart for them.
Bringing up Obama as "socialist" (as the newest McCain Camp tactic), is silly because the people who are rabbidly against Obama don't tend to be errr, too intellectual.
So you have a bunch of parrots screaming "socialism" about Obama, and most probably don't even know what they're referring too. Now how is that an effective tool Mr. McCain?
"We need John McCain to leave... uh... lead this country." - Palin, Vice Presidential Debate
McCain/Palin Deathwatch, October 3, '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 28% chance of winning the election.
I think it is pandering to the people that don't like the idea of others 'getting something for nothing', so to speak. I would think this targets the demographic that seems to be the deciders for this election - middle-class, blue collar, America. Stirring up feelings against those that would receive additional money back from the gov't when millions pay no tax at all is a powerful emotion to many. A different type of class warfare - pitting the have somes from the have nots and removing the emphasis from the have a lots.
Just a guess as to why Joe the Plumber and his question got such a buzz (different discussion on him personally). Obama's comments on 'spread the wealth' around stokes this type of mania. Perhaps a backhanded way of introducing bigotry against the poor.
"I think it is pandering to the people that don't like the idea of others 'getting something for nothing', so to speak. I would think this targets the demographic that seems to be the deciders for this election - middle-class, blue collar, America."
It's pandering alright. But Obama's Camp keeps redirecting people, noting that the people "getting something for nothing" aren't the middle class, under McCain's plan.
And I still maintain that many don't know what they're really saying when they parrot the word "socialism".
"We need John McCain to leave... uh... lead this country." - Palin, Vice Presidential Debate
McCain/Palin Deathwatch, October 3, '08: McCain presently has a (partially complimentary) 28% chance of winning the election.
My wife and I have done well. We will pay more under the Obama tax plan and less under the McCain plan, yet we will both vote for Obama.
There are a number of reasons why, but perhaps foremost among them is the recent culture of the disposability of employees. It pains me - absolutely pains me when a company makes a healthy profit, but because they come a penny or two a share under the whisper numbers thousands of hard working people lose their jobs. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Just because it usually props up the stock price for part of the quarter doesn't mean it's good for the company, and it's certainly not good for the country and the people who lose their jobs.
These employees frequently take lower paying jobs in order to make ends meet. I don't have the numbers to show it, but I suspect it is a significant part of why income disparity is at the highest it's been since 1929.
Of course, Obama even with a dem majority in both houses won't be able to prevent this. However, he can set policies that discourage it. I don't want to see a European-style system where it's hard to fire a person even for gross misconduct, but I do want companies to treat employees more fairly than they have been.
OK... Rant mode off - but for me it's not about sharing the wealth. It's setting policy to treat people fairly.
Aileron - I hate to tell you but the FIRST thing most large companies do when they need to cut expenses are layoffs. We see it everyday. I shudder to think what will happen if GM and Chrysler decide to merge. There are some companies that try to minimize this but other not so much. I guess the bigger they are the harder it is to look for savings elsewhere.
Unfortunately should corp taxes be raised or loopholes closed, in this current economic climiate I am really afraid it will result in job loss first and price increases second.
On a brighter note, I never thought I would be happy to say that I paid 3/gal for gas.
I agree, Piqued. I survived the 1980's financial downturn in banking and the companies I worked for -- as well as our competitors -- did everything they could before layoffs.
The problems we face will not be solved by the minds that created them.
Yes I was referencing public companies specifically ones that manage stock price instead of the enterprise.
I agree layoffs cost more than just simple jobs. Of course, some industries are more susceptible than others.
Jill,
I'm going to ask you to read my post and respond to what I wrote.
Did you read my post? I understand that companies that are in the red have to lay off people.
What I wrote, and what I object to are companies that are making healthy profits that miss their whisper numbers and so lay off people to prop up their stock. It's happening more and more, and it's unethical.
You cite GM and Chrysler. What do they have to do with my post? Obviously they are not in the position I described.
Sorry I was expanding on your thought - not challenging your post. I was typing quickly at work and didn't read how jumbled my post sounded.
As I replied to Piqued - some managers are more concerned with propping up stock price than to actually manage.
I cited GM/Chrysler without finishing my thought. There are shedding jobs due to unhealthy business but also wonder what affect increased taxes would have on this fragile industry. I think the auto industry is another example of how managers have forgotten the logic of the enterprise.
Thanks Gergen for sharing our point of view of how the inequality of wealth has been widening throughout recent times! It's not socialism per se, it has to do with FAIRNESS.
No matter what, wealth will get redistributed, up or down.
Hi all -
New here, and was going to introduce myself the proper way in the Introduction thread but I saw this article and just couldn't resist posting early (the headline made me chuckle):
[Link]
(hope I did that right...)
Thanks for the article. That was interesting. Welcome to RFO. Jump in a thread anytime. :-)
Obama/Biden 2008
Welcome to RFO, audio. Stay awhile, and enjoy yourself.
I knew we would begin to get a lot more posters as the election got closer and closer.
There is a good article in today's Chicago Tribune (online) titled Socialists: Obama no socialist
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-chicago-socialist,0,4048540.story
I've found two really good articles concerning wealth inequality. The comments by Marriner Eccles, FDR's Chairman of the Fed ring so true today even though he was speaking about the cause of the Great Depression. This isn't really about income inequality, but a part of it is. Scroll down a bit to the italicized part.
Link
Comments by Larry Summers, Clinton's Treasury Secretary. The numbers are astounding.
Link
Mitt Romney contradicts John McCain's accusation that Barack Obama is a socialist.
I'm a social drinker... but I'm no socialist!
Obama/Biden 2008
Anyone else notice the rich irony of Palin calling Obama a socialist. She did after all enact a huge windfall profit tax on big oil and distributed the revenue directly to Alaskan citizens to the tune of $3200.00 for every man, woman, and child in the state. So will the real socialist please stand up?
I think some surrogates for Obama should mention this little tidbit when the talking heads of the MSM bring this topic up.