Obama hits back on 'socialist' charge; McCain wants to redistribute wealth to the already wealthy

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: CNN

FAYETTEVILLE, North Carolina (CNN) – Barack Obama fired back against charges his tax policy amounts to “socialism,” arguing John McCain simply wants to redistribute wealth to the already wealthy.

“It’s kind of hard to figure how Warren Buffet endorsed me, Colin Powell endorses me, and John McCain thinks I’m embracing socialism,” Obama said. “This is his argument because I want to give a tax cut to the middle class, because I want to give a tax cut to 95 percent of American workers.”

The Democratic nominee also said that while McCain may call giving regular Americans a tax break “socialism,” he calls it an “opportunity.”

“Here’s the truth, North Carolina. This debate – and this election – comes down to what we value. In the America I know, we don’t just value wealth, we value the work and workers who create it,” he said. “He can call me any name he wants but what he’s talking about is not right, it’s not change, that’s why we’re going to beat him in this election on November 4th.”...

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/19/obama-h... /

[NI4NI]

1. K&R

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tsuki]

84. Surprise, business are ALREADY moving overseas on the

tax dollars that I pay in and they draw out.

[zbdent]

2. I've often said that Repukes use the "watering the lawn" metaphor of "spreading the prosperity"

(especially fatboy himself) ...

You spread the wealth around, and it benefits "everybody" ...

but in practice, they water the fruit tree by spraying the water directly onto the fruit in hopes that the tree absorbs some from the fruit ...

[Buenaventura]

23. 'tain't water they're spreadin'

[Toucano]

3. Good for him! n-t

[Astrad]

4. What's wrong with socialism? n/t

[mzmolly]

29. It's a distraction

from the facts about Obama's agenda. That's what's wrong with it.

[Terran]

34. Nothing; the word has become a right-wing swear word

much like 'liberal'.

[snappyturtle]

45. I grew up in the fifties and to this day I can't tolerate being on the" left".

At that time being a leftie=communist.

[DUlover2909]

96. left is communist and right is nazi-ism. I prefer the left if those are the choices.

Nazi-ism = National Socialism if anyone cares to take notice. Communism has it's roots in the word community. Does anyone oppose community-ism? It's all about rhetoric now.

[TxBlue]

41. Many think it terms of black & white & they've heard Socialism = Bad

The traditional family unit as set up is socialistic.

Just sayin' but certain words are red flags to some that aren't as inclined to analyze and ponder the meaning of different concepts.

[rucognizant]

46. Not really.............

Conservative family units are authoritarian NOT socialistic! Just watch Cindy mccain walk 3 steps behind john at all times.

[DWilliamsamh]

42. 1) it is a distraction from the real issues 2) socialism is just as impossible as pure capitalism.

[amyrose2712]

64. Right, capitalism needs a little socialism to keep it going.

But,like you all have said, its just another straw to grasp. They got nothin'. So they have to make stuff up. It is annoying every time I hear that Obama is the "most liberal senator". If only that were true. Just another distraction, and something else to stir up the base. If they aren't told what to be angry about or what to feel, how else would they know?

[DWilliamsamh]

71. Agreed it is the marching orders and martial song of the right

Anyone with half a brain knows neither Capitalism, nor Socialism can work in their pure form. But that really isn't the point. It's all about sound bites with these assholes. it's all about"the ten words."

And anyone with half a brain knows that there are PLENTY of Senators more liberal than the truly middle of the road, liberal leaning Mr. Obama. What's wrong with them? Can't they pronounce Kucinich? They should try Sanders then.

[amyrose2712]

72. BERNIE!BERNIE!BERNIE! nt

[DWilliamsamh]

75. Big smiles... love that socialist bastard!

BTW, I noticed the Phil's avator... You from Philly? I grew up there and live just outside the city.

[Potomac Will]

77. Yes, but the Right must be stripped of that term

Yes, as a matter of political philosophy, you're right; but, as a practical matter, the Right must be disarmed of the whipping stick of that term "socialism" by pointing out that the Right socializes debt, while privatizing profits.

I actually know an exec who makes in a month more than the life-time earnings of his rank and file employees, yet the company's employee pension plan is underfunded and the company is attempting to eliminate retiree health benefits. ERISA and Medicare--the tax payer , in other words--will be oblige to carry the freight unless he is reigned in somehow. Now here is the kicker: the "company" is a nonprofit association.

[iconicgnom]

48. Modern socialism as practiced by developed democracies requires a degree of political maturity.

It's difficult to achieve and maintain "socialist" programs like universal equal-access health care, or social security insurance, or education system, or an equally accessable affordable publicly owned energy grid, and etc. It requires that the adult population be mature enough politically to understand such elementary facts as that such "socialism" isn't opposed to "capitalism" and "the market economy" - but rather, it provides the foundation of an educated, healthy, relatively stress-free population having equal opportunity, in which a sound market economy can thrive.

But to an undeveloped and politically immature population words like "socialism" are as much trigger-words as "terrorism" and "communism" etc., and can be used by propagandists to herd the population into acting against its own interest.

Nowadays that kind of political immaturity is product of deliberate social engineering. It isn't "natural". In the US it goes all the way back to HUAC and McCarthy, which stood solidly against notions like "free association", categorizing some associations "american" and others "anti-american". Ronald Reagan, for example, testified before HUAC - it was the beginning of his career and set the tone for what was to come. It set an aggressive agenda of overt and covert suppression of modern political ideas, and associations.

And this deliberately induced ignorance produced a population which was eager to support foreign policies aimed at using US wealth and military power to overthrow freely elected democracies of less developed (read: powerful) countries around the world, which dared to implement "socialist" policies. Those policies continue to this day.

So words like "socialism" are very loaded in the US, in a way that they aren't in Europe, Canada, and other countries where "freedom" means the same thing for both "right" and "left". Progressives in the US have quite a fight on their hands.

[Overseas]

65. The poor are supposed to line up and beg for Johnny and Cindy to

toss them some change, and for Sarah to pray for them.

[fed_up_mother]

80. Repukes are too stupid to know the difference between socialism and USSR style communism

And, of course, the nuances of a mixed economy are completely lost on them!

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. McCain believes that this country should be controlled by sugar daddies.

[Cronopio]

7. "Sugar-daddy capitalism"

That's one the Obama campaign could make use of. Much more honest than "supply-side economics".

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. Right on the nosey.

I personally believe the DUzy awards are a lot of mutual-admiration hoopla, and should be more for picking the real nuggets from this little think-tank we call DU. If that's the case, your comment should get some attention. "Sugar-Daddy Capitalism." That's one that we should see on the Daily Show.

[dgibby]

20. send the idea to Obama's campaign!

[DrToast]

32. I love it! (nm)

*

[marshall]

33. What about "it takes one to know one"?

[endarkenment]

6. Republicans are against spreading the wealth.

They want to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. It is that simple.

[Raksha]

25. Yup...exactly that simple. n/t

[Overseas]

66. Well actually, they want to spread it UPWARD.

To be sure the people who get the $800,000,000,000 are the ones who really deserve it.

Not those lazy poor people.

[cascadiance]

97. That's what deregulation was ALL about. Take down the rules to allow them to do this!

[cilla4progress]

8. Re-framing

Last night (when I couldn't sleep for 2 hours in amazement and excitement for all that is Obama's candidacy) I figured out how to frame this, and what Obama meant by "spread the wealth around," and how McCain is perverting his meaning: McCain is intimating (for his own purposes) that Obama wants to TAKE from some to redistribute, spread to, others. What Obama was saying, was that as "wealth" is created, that new wealth should be equitably shared among all, especially those to whom it has been - is always - unfairly denined.

I hope Obama can make this framing a talking point. When I first heard his conversation with fake "Joe," I knew this was going to be a problem, because "redistribution of wealth" is one of those catch statements that sends John Birchers running for their pitchforks. All credit to the American electorate, though: this time they seem to be more educated, and more savvy to seeing with the Repugs are up to. Maybe we owe Rove thanks for overdosing / innoculating the electorate with cynicism and lies the past 8 years!

[pipi_k]

11. I hope he can re-frame it too

Right now John McCain is on CNN going on and on about "spreading the wealth" (Obama) vs his plan, which includes "spreading the opportunity".

My question....

What freakin' "opportunity" is he talking about??????

Training programs for jobs that don't exist?

The guy has voted along with Bush 90% of the time....there's footage of him actually saying that, no matter how he tries to deny he's nothing like George Bush. That's a "maverick"?

I hope fence-sitters and "undecided" voters really take a hard look at that, even if they don't look at any other issue. Four more years of most of George Bush's policies.

[dgibby]

21. another good idea to send to Obama's campaign!

[FirstLight]

52. The WORD for me is "sustainable"

We need to create a sustainable economy, sustainable farming, sustainable transportation system, etc..

Obama is prime to lead into the 21st Century. THAT's what McCain doesn't get...in "his" day it was only known as communism or socialism...

here's a letter I wrote to Obama regarding this:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Journalgrrl/5...

[barbtries]

81. good letter

and i agree.

[pipi_k]

9. Oh the horror!!!!

Imagine people actually wanting to be able to afford gas and food and medicine and college for their kids.

Ungrateful bastards!!!!


What's the matter with them??? Don't they know that their poverty, struggles, and despair are necessary so that the privileged few can buy $10,000 watches and own whole fleets of vintage cars, and take posh vacations to places those whiners can only dream of?

[Bette Noir]

10. Over the weekend,

I was hearing right-wingers on the radio saying "socialist" and "Marxist," as if our Barack were getting his political philosophy from dangerous elements. Nope, it's from "Hello Dolly"-- "Money is like manure. You have to spread it around so things can grow."

[pipi_k]

14. I had an interesting experience over the weekend too

We had some company whose opinions are totally opposite mine and Mr Pip's.

These two tried to discuss politics a couple of times but were told in clear terms that we don't discuss politics. However, one of them did manage to slip in something he had heard, concerning the 700 billion dollar bailout...

There are 300 million people in the US, more or less

Instead of giving all 700 billion to failing banks and stuff, why not take half of it and just give each person a billion dollars to do with what they like...

OK I'm no economist, but it sure seemed like a pretty good idea to me.

But beyond that, I cynically wondered just how many of those people raising their fists and ranting about "Socialism" would have accepted that billion dollars from the government and then had the nerve to bash anyone for wanting to "spread the wealth"...


anyway, I spent a few happy moments dreaming of what a billion dollars would buy...

[verges]

19. I'm not an economist either. But,

I'm guessing that if everyvody had a billion; then a loaf of bread would cost a million. We'd end up with Weimar style inflation.

[w4rma]

30. Actually the number is closer to ~$2,500 for every single person living in America. (nt)

[DWilliamsamh]

51. Your math is off:

$700,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 people = $2,333.33 per person. And that money would have to be paid back just like the $700 Billion will eventually have to be paid back. The only difference is there would be no asset (even an over-priced one) to secure the loan.

[HopeHoops]

43. McCain and Palin are quite proficient at spreading manure!

[happygoluckytoyou]

12. it IS class warfare.... laws have ALWAYS directed the flow of wealth.... the wealthy only complain->

it IS class warfare.... laws have ALWAYS directed the flow of wealth.... the wealthy only complain-> WHEN IT IS DIRECTED ELSEWHERE FROM THEMSELVES

who are we kidding... in america, china, russia... some things are the SAME ALL OVER...

wealthy and powerful people WANT THINGS TO REMAIN THE SAME (who can blame them?) and less wealthy people want CHANGE...

DECIDE WHICH YOU ARE>....... and VOTE YOUR POCKETBOOK

[ItNerd4life]

24. "Laws have always directed the flow of wealth"

should have finished with "to the wealthy". But the argument is a good one and needs to be said more.

[Hydra]

15. Obama needs to be pointing out that the rich have no problem

With socializing losses to us.

Socialism- it's good enough for the rich, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us?

[Dangerously Amused]

28. Good point.

I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms, but that encapsulates the idea nicely.

[StClone]

16. Renewed Scare "Socialism! LIBERAL!"

After years of the Cons selling the dangers of Socialism, Welfare Queens, Liberal elites as the Wealthy ripped everyone else off, listen to the radio call-ins and the building chorus against Obama of "By God those Liberals this or Socialism that." Hordes of trained flying monkeys are still with us.

[Potomac Will]

17. 'We don't just value wealth, we value work and the worker who created it'

Obama hit the nail on the head with that statement. Moreover, Bush's Wall Street Bailout is socialism on such a scale that the Right must never again be permitted to use the term perjoratively. Are we to accept "socializing" the bad debts of oligarchs even as we repudiate "socialized" health insurance? Hell no. The Right's rap on socialism only serves to keep people from demanding a fairer share of the wealth they produce.

[grahamhgreen]

18. Socialism works - look at the enlightened socialist democracies of Europe/NZ/OZ

[primavera]

22. Thank you!

I get so sick of hearing Repukes hurl the term socialist as if it were a derogatory term - and then watching Dems cave and deny having anything to do with socialism - when the world's most advanced cultures and economies are, pretty much one and all, social democracies. The equating of socialism and communism was absurd back in McCarthy's day; it's trebly absurd today. We're doing ourselves a huge disservice by refusing to learn from the examples of more evolved nations because their form of governance happens to bear a name hurled in anger by a handful of pea-brained, paranoid Repukes of our grandparents' generation. If this were a novel, no one would buy it because it's too implausible to be believed - nobody is that stupid!

[eagertolearn]

37. Right now we are a great example of capitalism going haywire!

We are the second most capitalistic country in the world (behind china if I remember right) and Cuba is the most socialistic(I believe at #260). Norway and Sweden rating on capitalistic countries a is around 55. They supply health care and education for all their citizens. It always cracks me up when the repugs start yelling "socialism". We are so far away from socialism that I don't think we could even get there if we tried. I wouldn't mine heading towards Norway and Sweden though!

[bjobotts]

91. That's the prime difference, Obama wants to govern; McCain wants to rule.

McCain wants to increase the royalty and increase the security to protect their wealth. Get the lobbyists away from policy making, away from the "rescue/bailout", away from McCain and Obama and we might have a chance. Obama is only asking for the wealthy to pay their fair share of the taxes, for greed to be regulated once again and the slime comes out of the woodwork to get more of what has ruined our nation...unregulated capitalism and greed concentrating the wealth into too few hands, the wealthy elite at the expense of those who created it with low paying jobs.

The wealthy elite will use McCain/Palin and anyone else, doing whatever it takes to protect their profiteering. Those who made millions creating an economic collapse...DUH!

[bjobotts]

92. WE are the government, remember. We must come together to prevent our demise

[bjobotts]

93. A little socialism never hurt anybody.Works for the Police and the library

[Mosaic]

101. We would be so lucky

Socialism rocks! We would be so lucky to have democratic socialism like Western Europe. If I could afford it I would have gladly expatriated years ago.

[KansDem]

26. I'm all for "redistributing wealth." It's been sitting in Lichtenstein banks for too long.

SET IT FREE NOW!!!

[Gap Spanner]

27. Reframing the Debate?

McCain can't win on the issues, so he has to redefine them. He's building straw man arguments.

He can't win by comparing his tax cuts to the wealthiest to Obama's tax cuts to the Middle Class. So he takes 'tax cut' and calls it 'redistribution of wealth' and 'socialism'. Obama is NOT talking about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor, he's talking about taking LESS from the poor and middle class, about leaving them more of what they actually worked for.

If McCain wants to reframe this debate in terms of 'taking from the rich and giving to the poor', then wouldn't the opposite be that McCain is 'taking from the poor and giving to the rich?'

Why isn't this hammered home to voters?

[fryguy]

31. Bush sends tax rebate checks and it is called "economic stimulous"

Obama proposes lowering taxes for 85% of Americans and raising taxes on the richest 2% and its called socialism....wtf?

[BlueDonkey08]

70. Very true

Kinda funny huh?

[Vinca]

35. John McCain endorses socialism for the wealthy. nt

[JBoy]

36. Glad to see them punching back on this one.

[LeftishBrit]

38. k&r and all too shockingly true

As I said in another thread, deregulation or non-regulation of Big Money almost always results in the robbing the poor to give to the rich.

[WatchWhatISay]

39. McCains next charge will be "Class War"

that's the one they all pull out when they have nowhere else to go and are truly desperate.

But I think Obama, unlike so many spineless Democrats, will face that charge head on. The fact is class war already exists in this country, and they are the ones promulgating it. Its about time we fight back. Not rich vs poor, but rich AND poor/middle class

[TxBlue]

40. US has Socialism for the Rich Now and Free Mkt Capitalism for the Lower Classes

So sez Robt. Reich on The Daily Show last week. Reich has come out with a new book.

Great statement that opens our eyes that the reality is that right now
America has Socialism for the Very Wealthy.

It's the middle and lower classes that have dog eat dog capitalism in play.

[snappyturtle]

44. Sen. Obama is really a gift. I don't know where he finds the strength

to fight back, inch by inch, with the daily onslaught of fallacious issues from the dark side.

[theDash]

49. "Share the Wealth" might be a better phrase

When McCain talks about enabling the middle class workers to create wealth, what he means is - helping to create wealth for the wealthy, for the corporations, for the banks, and for the shareholders.

Obama needs to frame this in a way, so that everyone understands that what he is saying is that the people creating the wealth (the bottom 95%), also get a share of the wealth (which has not been the case pretty much since Reagan).

They can call it socialism or whatever they want, the bottom line is, it is only fair and makes total economic sense.

We would not be in this economic meltdown if the workers who created the wealth, were able to then spend more of that that money on things they need (and want) and create a real economy where there are actual products and services in demand that WE THE PEOPLE need and want. We need to get back to a manufacturing based economy where actual goods are made and sold and that makes up the large part of our economy, not a bunch of financial and investment instruments that do nothing but create paper wealth out of thin air.

[snappyturtle]

54. I don't think you meant this reply for me however I'm glad it came my way.

I strongly believe in your last paragraph idea wholeheartedly. The paper shuffling and service sectors need to slim down and re-invest some of these workers into production of goods (when hopefully it become available). Since I've re-read some of the replies there's one issue I haven't read and that being we're going to have to be willing to pay more for our goods made in the USA. I wouldn't mine paying more for goods made here with service to those goods provided here, not in some distant land. It's not how many toys we leave behind but the quality of the toys we've left...and hopefully, more 'toys' will be labeled: Made in the USA!

[llmart]

55. Me too..

I'm tired of the crappy, low quality crap we have to pick from nowadays anyway. It's why I buy so little. It's mostly just cheap junk. I remember when you didn't have as much of anything, but what you had was quality. I'd go back to that in a heartbeat. And, yes, I'd be willing to pay more.

I realize that I'm not a mainstream person though and most idiots in this country love having a lot of crap and replacing it every year with more crap.

[snappyturtle]

58. I notice the cheapness most in clothing. Nothing hangs 'right' anymore.

Shallow seams, fabrics not cut on the bias (cheaper), everything is serged....yuck! Clothes are skimpy and the fabrics are less than high quality. I agree that most people seem happy with the crap and they can then shop more often!

Last weekend I was a bit under the weather and watched old movies. I noticed the beautiful clothes...not fashionable today but luxurious...I suppose beautiful clothes are still available but only with high ticket prices.

[llmart]

86. I remember when I got my first real job.....

in a law office in 1967. There were little dress shops in town where I would go to buy clothes. I still remember the wonderful fabric they were made from and the way they were put together. They weren't mass produced and they fit wonderfully. Nowadays if you wash something once it looks horrible no matter how careful you are in washing it. And don't get me started on socks and underwear!

[snappyturtle]

105. I agree. Having a wardrobe used to mean something too. nt

[bjobotts]

94. Keep in mind he's being advised on economics by Rubin who created this disaster

[katty]

47. Yes, a simple explanation - right to the point!

[AzDar]

50. Awesome response. I hope McCain's ready for the tide that's gonna wash over him

on Nov. 4th...or maybe I DON'T.

[Dr Fate]

53. When you say "Source: CNN" - do you mean obscure blog text or an actual television broadcast?

Was this on TV where swing-voters will see it or is this just obscure blog text?

I had to ask- because I never get excited over blog text that few or no swing-voters will ever see.

[DeepModem Mom]

56. It was in a fairly obscure place -- on the CNN website in the "Political Ticker" section.

I haven't been watching CNN on air, so I don't know if they covered the story, or aired a video of these remarks. I think they usually do cover the stories that appear on "The Ticker" on air.

[Dr Fate]

57. Thanks for clarification- I think this is something DUers should try to note.

Half the people reading this thread prpbably thought this was on TV for millions of viewers to see- in reality, maybe just a few thousand people read this, many of whom are high-info voters who are already likely voters for Obama...

I'm not trying to be negative, I'm saying we should weigh the impact from blog-text differently from TV broadcasts...

[Don Davis]

59. Forget 'Wealth' — McCain Wants to Spread the 'Manure' Around

http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=4131

[knixphan]

60. K&R

[scarface2004]

61. socialist workers for barack!!!!

i love me a socialist...it s all good!!!

[POAS]

62. They want CONCENTRATION of wealth.

Obama and the rest of us want to get back what they stole.

[katty]

69. concentration of wealth has always been the agenda

and now, here we are in this mess-again.

[POAS]

74. You're so right!

It got us into trouble in the twenties and it took the Dems to fix it then and it will take the Dems to do it now!

[Maestro]

63. I think it is a great way to reframe the McLame spin.

I'm all for it and I have always liked how Obama has not let these attacks go!

[Overseas]

67. Very glad Obama hit back on this !! Great statement. //nt

[blossomstar]

68. Wow, the comments were 95% pro Obama.

People are finally seeing the ugly crap McCain is throwing out. This Fanning woman is repulsive, but I think she actually "helped" Obama because people were ashamed, and rightly so. Those comments say a lot coming from NC.

[Deep13]

73. Does the government need money or not?

Are there thinks that we as a society need to do or not? If so, there's no goddamn point in trying to get that money from those who are already broke.

What McC calls socialism, I call egalitarianism. Are we merely hands for working and mouths for consuming or are we citizens, shareholders of this country? If we are shareholders then we have a right to expect a fair return on our investments.

[Andrushka]

76. What a place

Where being called an "Arab" is supposed to be an epithet, and socialism is something to be scared of. Booga booga!

[ThatsMyBarack]

78. Rec. #70!

[iamthebandfanman]

79. thats what ive been sayin to right wingers since they first said it

what exactly do you call giving our money to the wealthiest people ?

its the same damn thing in reverse.

the whole point of taxes IS for redistribution.....
its how we have roads, schools, and librarys...

[zelta gaisma]

83. socialist! LOL

Now don't mess up their fantasy with facts and logic! Taxes are pooling our wealth to buy stuff we (the poorer people anyway) couldn't afford like you said roads , schools etc. At least that's what I always thought it was, am I wrong?

[chapel hill dem]

85. I asked a friend about the charge of Obama being a Socialist and how we should respond. He said

he would say: "so, what's wrong with Socialism?!?".

I had a good laugh but told my friend to avoid TV cameras for at least two weeks.

[buddysmellgood]

88. We are a social democracy. We have some socialism. Our military, police, fire...all socialist.

Our cities, our sewage treatment, our schools...
How many of those asshats want to have to think about whether or not they can afford to call the fire department?

[chapel hill dem]

89. True. n/t

[Alcibiades]

99. Our military is the most socialist part of the government

I come from a military family, and I've always understood this. You get a cradle-to-grave package unlike anything offered anywhere else:

The first US institution to racially integrate--the US military
Equal pay for equal work (assuming equal pay grades)
Universal health care
Retirement benefits
Dependent benefits
Housing
Mess halls (which have gotten better over the years, or so I'm told)
Uniform allowances
Temporary duty pay
Worldwide travel (OK, sometimes not necessarily a benefit, but they sell it as if it were one.)
Paid training
Job security
Objective criteria for promotion and hiring
Everyone works for the government
Lots of make-work when there's nothing to do
Even the chaplains are paid by the government

There are too many to list. The DoD even operates a string of vacation venues worldwide for service people. Right now, some general officer is playing golf on a course owned by the US government, subsidized by your tax dollars.

If you ask most active duty or retired folks, they will say that they have earned this package. The question is why it is that the folks in the US who do work that economists deem economically productive don't deserve something similar.

[Alcibiades]

100. We are not a social democracy

Other than folks in the military, however, we are not a social democracy. Compared to what folks in actual social democracies get, we are in some sort of 19th century hellhole with dark, satanic mills.

Except for Wall Street. for years, we have been told that there is no money to pay for social benefits in this country. But when Wall Street says they made some bad investments, they get $700 billion in a matter of weeks. No notice, just "we need the money," and they get it. They are the real welfare queens--and some of them even own Caddies.

[knixphan]

102. seconded.

[buddysmellgood]

87. You know...I can hear his voice in my head when I read his words. He resonates and

it scares the shit out of the radical right.

[defendandprotect]

90. Truth is...McCain wants socialism for the rich ---

[Skittles]

95. THAT is the way to do it

pick their asinine little codewords apart

[GeorgeGist]

98. How sad ...

that Barack embraces anti-socialism.

[LatteLibertine]

103. I hope Obama wins by a landslide

I will be getting out to help make sure it happens. Make sure you encourage others to do the same. I hope young supports of Obama actually show up and vote.

The wealthy have been enjoying corporate welfare and wall street socialism for some time. Socialize the losses and privatize the profits has been in full effect for years. In practice, our economy has been more about corporatism than free market capitalism.

[GinaMaria]

104. I am completely confused

did the definition of socialism change? How are tax breaks for the middle class socialism? How is a bailout of the financial industry capitolism? Why are tax breaks for big businesses and very wealthy people not considered socialism?