I'd call him centre left, with some centre right leanings, ie Lib Dem

Girlysprite:
The funny thing with socialism is, that if it works well, it supports itself too.

People will get better education--> people get better jobs ---> people get paid more ---> people can pay more taxes ---> money can be spent on better education.

If anything works, it works to support itself. Socialist Russia worked by invading other countries and adding their wealth to the USSR. "Some are more equal than others," and with broad socialism what we'll get is a stratification of the rich and poor as they are now. The only way that won't happen will be to take money from the rich and give it directly to the poor, but then the skyrocketing inflation would force businesses to raise prices, thus making people relatively poor again.

The problem with revolutions is that they always come around again.

The point with such structures is always that they live between 'what is good for us as a group' and 'what does an individual want for itself'. It's a slider from one side to the other.

Good morning blues:
I'm down with socialism. It's the exploitation of our broken society that allowed the ultra-ultra-rich (not the top 50%, more like the top 10% or even fewer) to get where they are, and since they owe their success to society, it only makes sense that they should be the ones to fund its operation - it certainly isn't benefiting the rest of us nearly as much. Of course the poor only pay a small amount of taxes - they don't have any money to pay tax with; it just makes sense to me. As for universal health care, I don't see how anyone is against it except through the misinformation, disinformation, and prejudice based on lack of exposure that always floats through these conversations.

I'm The_Oracle and I approve this message. There's nothing inherently wrong with socialism, and if America had socialized medicine like several other notable nations do, that could save many lives and prevent many unnecessary deaths.

asamoah19:
The Guardian/The Observer (sunday format) - Centre Left (liberal, with some conservative bias on NHS and Imigration)

On the topic of Obama stuff and semi-reputable British papers...

The Guardian explains the ACORN scandal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/13/election-acorn-voter-fraud

(Executive summary: most of the fraudulent registrations were found by ACORN -- they are obliged to flag them as suspicious and pass them on to election officials rather than destroying them.)

-- Alex

There is only one thing that I woudl love to take form socailism. And that would be the universal health care.

Im have an issue with yoru child not being able to a trated at a hospital simply becuase that hospital doesnt carry yoru insurance pervider, or having to chose which toe to reattach simply beucase you lake the income. Peoples lives and health are not thigns that sh0oudl be trusted to the free market.

Then again having free post secondary education wouldnt be that bad ethier.

Other than those to things i belive we dont need any more improvements, for now at least.

Socialism has good concepts with it and it's not entirely a bad thing. Unfortunately, most people have been programmed to insta-rage at the mere mention of the word "socialism." They also seem to be against having raised taxes to provide services to them which boggles the mind. I'd gladly pay higher taxes if it means never having to worry about affording medical care.
Of course as long people go "BLARARAR RUSSIA" every time someone mentions socializing aspects of our society that need it, that'll never happen.

I love the way you're all so proud of your goddamn country that you assume you're living in a meritocracy.
The truly rich do not become wealthy through hard work, or because they are somehow deserving; they're just canny enough to exploit the flaws in their respective system.

Also, ffs, stop spouting off about political ideologies when you don't know what you're talking about. Communism is a form of socialism, not the other way round. Not all socialists are Marxists (democratic socialism, see the British Labour govt. before Neil Kinnock), whereas Marxists are necessarily socialist.

TinyTim:
I love the way you're all so proud of your goddamn country that you assume you're living in a meritocracy.
The truly rich do not become wealthy through hard work, or because they are somehow deserving; they're just canny enough to exploit the flaws in their respective system.

Also, ffs, stop spouting off about political ideologies when you don't know what you're talking about. Communism is a form of socialism, not the other way round. Not all socialists are Marxists (democratic socialism, see the British Labour govt. before Neil Kinnock), whereas Marxists are necessarily socialist.

So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system? According to all you people, when you reach a certain wealth you instantly become an evil money mongering asshole? Sounds a bit Marxish to me.

TomNook:
So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system?

Not all, but at roughly the same rate that poor people got poor out of laziness.

-- Steve

Anton P. Nym:

TomNook:
So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system?

Not all, but at roughly the same rate that poor people got poor out of laziness.

-- Steve

What does exploiting the system entail?

TomNook:
What does exploiting the system entail?

I'd guess everything up to, including, and going beyond such examples as:
- using loopholes in tax legislation to place money in such a way as to avoid taxation.
- using other's ignorance of rules and regulations, such as using labour that is unaware of their rights to partially avoid the costs of employing others.
- squashing legitimate opposition through scare tactics.
- overtly illegal activities (dealing in prohibited goods, embezzlement, fraud, theft, blackmail)
- lobbying

I refute that socialism and communism go hand in hand. In the UK, until very recently have we had a style of politics which could easily be described as having socialist imfluences, and yet I really doubt anyone would describe us as communists.

Besides; this whole knee-jerk reaction to communism is a pathetic relic of the cold war days when the term 'communism' was incorrectly synonymous with 'evil'. Surely you're more mature than that?

(and I'd like to point out that while Obama might be seen as 'centre-left' in American politics, if he were somehow to enter UK politics he'd definitely be in the most right-wing mainstream party. It's all a matter of what you're used to.)

TomNook:

Anton P. Nym:

TomNook:
So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system?

Not all, but at roughly the same rate that poor people got poor out of laziness.

What does exploiting the system entail?

What does willingly starving yourself to get on pogey entail?

'Twas a joke, son, poking fun at the wingnut examples from both extremes. In actual fact posession of wealth (or lack thereof) is not a reliable indication of merit or virtue.

-- Steve

Arkracer:
I refute that socialism and communism go hand in hand. In the UK, until very recently have we had a style of politics which could easily be described as having socialist imfluences, and yet I really doubt anyone would describe us as communists.

Besides; this whole knee-jerk reaction to communism is a pathetic relic of the cold war days when the term 'communism' was incorrectly synonymous with 'evil'. Surely you're more mature than that?

(and I'd like to point out that while Obama might be seen as 'centre-left' in American politics, if he were somehow to enter UK politics he'd definitely be in the most right-wing mainstream party. It's all a matter of what you're used to.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++

TomNook:

Anton P. Nym:

TomNook:
So all rich people got rich by exploiting the system?

Not all, but at roughly the same rate that poor people got poor out of laziness.

-- Steve

What does exploiting the system entail?

When you take wealth from the system in a way that reduces the overall level of wealth in the system.

It's like the wealth in the system are the tools in a co-op. If you use the tools to go build something, then that's yours and you own it as private property and can do what you want with it. However, if you take the tools and melt them down for scrap and sell the scrap, the wealth you get for selling the scrap is wealth that was gained by exploiting the system.

That's a rough idea, and it's even got contradictions in it, but I think it gets the message across.

What if you become rich without exploiting or demanding help from the system? Why should I have to give back to it?

TomNook:
What if you become rich without exploiting or demanding help from the system? Why should I have to give back to it?

You use the system. You went to school, you drive on roads (or, at the very least, buy goods that were delivered over those roads), you had police and military protection, your bank deposits were insured, your food and medicines inspected for safety and quality... all of these functions (and many more) are governmental, even in the US. So you should pay the fees necessary for the upkeep of those services.

That there are additional services you didn't use is immaterial; you probably won't get to claim all your car insurance payments back, and yet you have that insurance because you might need it. Social programs are a form of "poverty insurance" that is available to you should you end up falling into poverty, hopefully allowing you to get back on your feet. The taxes for that are your premiums. Come to think of it, even if you never do have to claim your poverty insurance you still benefit from it; if you think crime is bad now, wait until you see a society where the poor don't have access to those benefits. You're way better off paying those premiums than you would be hiring the number of police you'd need instead (also on the public purse).

I'll also point out that all those services are provided much more cheaply under a universal-payer system than they would be under a "fee for service" system. Roads especially, though private police worth paying for ain't cheap either.

-- Steve

Arkracer:
I refute that socialism and communism go hand in hand. In the UK, until very recently have we had a style of politics which could easily be described as having socialist imfluences, and yet I really doubt anyone would describe us as communists.

Besides; this whole knee-jerk reaction to communism is a pathetic relic of the cold war days when the term 'communism' was incorrectly synonymous with 'evil'. Surely you're more mature than that?

(and I'd like to point out that while Obama might be seen as 'centre-left' in American politics, if he were somehow to enter UK politics he'd definitely be in the most right-wing mainstream party. It's all a matter of what you're used to.)

Communist Dictatorship= Socialist ideology+ (oh, crap, we're here now what do we do to control the populace now that WE'RE in power???) ;)

Barack isn't running in England (could be a better career move for him though!!) ;)

Anton P. Nym:

TomNook:
What if you become rich without exploiting or demanding help from the system? Why should I have to give back to it?

You use the system. You went to school, you drive on roads (or, at the very least, buy goods that were delivered over those roads), you had police and military protection, your bank deposits were insured, your food and medicines inspected for safety and quality... all of these functions (and many more) are governmental, even in the US. So you should pay the fees necessary for the upkeep of those services.

That there are additional services you didn't use is immaterial; you probably won't get to claim all your car insurance payments back, and yet you have that insurance because you might need it. Social programs are a form of "poverty insurance" that is available to you should you end up falling into poverty, hopefully allowing you to get back on your feet. The taxes for that are your premiums. Come to think of it, even if you never do have to claim your poverty insurance you still benefit from it; if you think crime is bad now, wait until you see a society where the poor don't have access to those benefits. You're way better off paying those premiums than you would be hiring the number of police you'd need instead (also on the public purse).

I'll also point out that all those services are provided much more cheaply under a universal-payer system than they would be under a "fee for service" system. Roads especially, though private police worth paying for ain't cheap either.

-- Steve

And I assume that all Americans pay these "premiums"?

Trace2010:
And I assume that all Americans pay these "premiums"?

Yeah, that's why he said exactly that in his post.

TheBadass:

Trace2010:
And I assume that all Americans pay these "premiums"?

Yeah, that's why he said exactly that in his post.

But that's the problem. Not everyone in America earns enough to pay taxes. The problem is is that your estimated number of people who fall under these provisions (and the government subsidies that come with them) is a much larger part of the population than anyone (liberal or conservative) wants to admit.

Trace2010:
But that's the problem. Not everyone in America earns enough to pay taxes. The problem is is that your estimated number of people who fall under these provisions (and the government subsidies that come with them) is a much larger part of the population than anyone (liberal or conservative) wants to admit.

As I've said before, if you have a large-enough population who cannot earn enough to pay taxes that this is an undue burden on your economy, its not your tax system (or "poverty insurance" system) that's busted. Besides, what's the point in billing the beneficiaries of the insurance only to pay it back out?

And I've already pointed out that the rich do benefit from lowered costs of other common services; indeed, they benefit disproportionally as they're usually greater users of roads and air-traffic control systems etc. than those with less disposable income and they certainly have more to lose without police and military around. The greater your benefits, the higher the premiums; that's part of how insurance works, anyway.

-- Steve

Anton P. Nym:

Trace2010:
But that's the problem. Not everyone in America earns enough to pay taxes. The problem is is that your estimated number of people who fall under these provisions (and the government subsidies that come with them) is a much larger part of the population than anyone (liberal or conservative) wants to admit.

As I've said before, if you have a large-enough population who cannot earn enough to pay taxes that this is an undue burden on your economy, its not your tax system (or "poverty insurance" system) that's busted. Besides, what's the point in billing the beneficiaries of the insurance only to pay it back out?

And I've already pointed out that the rich do benefit from lowered costs of other common services; indeed, they benefit disproportionally as they're usually greater users of roads and air-traffic control systems etc. than those with less disposable income and they certainly have more to lose without police and military around. The greater your benefits, the higher the premiums; that's part of how insurance works, anyway.

-- Steve

That is where I guess you and I will have to fundamentally agree to disagree and leave it be. It goes back to concepts of fairness that are foundationally instilled that cannot be changed. Your arguments are very concrete and convincing, I must give props when they are due. The only problem is that they only further prove my point as well.

Your argument of billing the beneficiaries of insurance only to pay it back out: that's the way that insurance companies actually work. If I have auto insurance, I know I am supporting other people on the payouts for the accident through my premiums, but I also know that a deductible must be paid on most types of insurance in order for the plans to kick through. ONCE AGAIN: IF YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE COLLECTING THAN PAYING INTO THIS "INSURANCE" SYSTEM, THEN THE SYSTEM ITSELF WILL FAIL.

Right now, we do. Right now, the system is in a period of failure. I don't just speak this stuff- I see it down the street. I live in ground zero for what will become the "minority majority" movement in the next 30 years. And I believe that the situation will NOT get better with Obama as President, despite his best intentions.

Trace2010:
Your argument of billing the beneficiaries of insurance only to pay it back out: that's the way that insurance companies actually work. If I have auto insurance, I know I am supporting other people on the payouts for the accident through my premiums, but I also know that a deductible must be paid on most types of insurance in order for the plans to kick through. ONCE AGAIN: IF YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE COLLECTING THAN PAYING INTO THIS "INSURANCE" SYSTEM, THEN THE SYSTEM ITSELF WILL FAIL.

In the long run it'd be better to use capital to found new businesses, yes, but unfortunately most investors don't look to the long term; in the short term, the higher return comes from lending money to existing and already-successful firms instead of start-ups. That pulls money away from the real economic driver, small and middle-sized business, and towards the big guys. The net result is to increase the size of big business (and, perversely, big labour because of the large concentration of the talent pool) at the expense of the small... and the small tend to concentrate upon becoming "feeder" businesses selling to the big because they follow the money. So you end up with a system of dependance upon big business and a concomitant increase in economic power for big business... and both combine to give big business greater political and social clout, because no one can afford to let 'em die. Eventually you get to a critical concentration, and the system fails; most likely because the system is so dependant upon a few interconnected providers that when one screws up it drags down everyone else.

There needs to be a countervailing force to that. It's in the long-term interests of everyone to spread that power out, so that the system is less vulnerable to point failures; if the markets can't do it, someone else has to. Sadly, that leaves government intervention unless there's a third option everyone's missing.

If your existing system leaves so many people too destitute to pay even basic taxes that they become the majority then your existing system is already well down the path I described above. Hopefully it's not so far that you have to take drastic measures; with luck, all you'll need are some adjustments and not a complete overhaul.

-- Steve

So, a question for all of you anti-wealth-spreaders (yoinked from electoral-vote.com):

The McCain campaign apparently has a new theme this week: attacking Obama for wanting to "spread the wealth." But it is not clear what that really means. Many Republicans have bitterly opposed the federal income tax since the 16th amendment was passed in 1913. Is McCain going to repeal the federal income tax? If so, how does he plan to finance the government? Or does he mean that the difference between the top rate of 39.6% under Bill Clinton and the top rate of 36% under George Bush is the difference between communism and capitalism? The purpose of the progressive federal income tax is to spread the wealth. That Democrats have supported a progressive income tax for decades is hardly news. Does McCain want to keep the tax but make it a flat tax (a la Steve Forbes)? No word on this. It seems this is just another desperate attempt to attack Obama rather than being a serious policy proposal for tax reform and it comes awfully late in the game. If McCain wanted to run on a platform of a flat tax, he certainly has had the opportunity, but until now he didn't bring up the subject.

So, what's the magic number? What level of progressive income tax qualifies as "not socialist"?

-- Alex

I was going to respond to this thread in more depth, but I realized I could do more good by posting a link to the following article, Anti-Obamanomics.

The linked article above is very long, so I suspect few of you are going to read it. But if you genuinely care to see a detailed, consistent argument against Obama's policies (and against Reagan's and Bush's policies, too, as you'll see), you should read it. The post is by an economics professor from Pepperdine named George Reisman, who authored an economics textbook I read in law school called "Capitalism." Fortune magazine called it "the book you would want in your library if you want to know what a consistent, intelligent advocate of capitalism would say on almost any economic issue" and I've found Reisman to consistently be a great source of economic explanations.

Enjoy.

Mistah Kurtz:
...his positions on free health care and taxation. Obama himself has used the words "Spread the wealth around" many times to justify his incredible tax hike on the upper class.

The UK and much of Europe has free health care tough I wouldn't say that they were socialist agendas by any means. Though, I agree it is a moderately left wing policy.

Spreading the wealth around, basically, means taking from the rich and giving to the poor. People who work hard to be successful (like Joe the Plumber) shouldn't be penalized for succeeding.

I don't think that Joe the plumber will be punished for his hard work, taxes are essential for any government, underfunding in infrastructure will cost Joe the Plumber more in the long run.

More importantly however is that we are not talking about hard workers, we are talking about the elite, people with many millions of dollars who have made money by being fairly unscrupulously. Are you going to tell me that the super rich bankers who have almost destroyed the economy, worked hard for their money and shouldn't be taxed on it?

In capitalism the rich only get rich by making the rest poor. There was a time when having significantly more than the majority was considered stealing from the community. Look what we have as a result, a broken society based on greed where we lavish in over-consumption while others even on our own streets live in poverty, not just of money but of education and health care. What a despicable way we have learnt to treat each other.

Critics will point out the fact that wealth is extremely concentrated into the far upper tiers of society, but they also fail to point out that the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 97% of all federal taxes - the bottom 50% pays only 3%, so I'd say they're at least doing their share. Spreading the wealth is not what America does - that's what the USSR did - right up until their collapse.

Firstly, that's not the reason for the collapse of the USSR. They hardly had any social security, they practically pillaged the villages and farmers to keep the whole thing going. The same thing is happening in China.

Oh, but you're right America does not spread the wealth, tat's why $13 billion dollars of relief money for Iraq almost entirely went into the corrupt pockets of the American 'elite'. At least your taxes under Obama wouldn't have to pay for that! Glad I don't pay tax in America!

Obama's ties to the far left are numerous, including his membership in the New Party (an american socialist political party) and in fact was one of their sponsored candidates. He was also a member of a radical far left racist church for 2 decades. He launched his political career in the living room of an admitted far left terrorist bomber. He describes in his OWN AUTOBIOGRAPHY that he picked his friends carefully, and that he picked Marxists and Socialists as his friends.

While listening to the radio, I heard an Obama supporter call a right wing talk show and explain that the reason he supported Obama was because of his socialist platform. After the host immediately asked if he was secretly a McCain supporter, he vehemently denied it and explained that he was serious. After answering 'yes' and 'no' respectively to the host's questions "You wouldn't happen to be a college student, would you?" and "Do you have a job?", and was soon hung up on after attempting to explain why socialism is the right way to go.

My question to Obama supporters is this: Do you agree that his policies are socialist in nature, if not why not, and if so, why don't you care?

Firstly Obama is far from a socialist. The position he is currently in and the position he hopes to obtain are a testament to that fact. There's nothing wrong with left wing policy in social welfare, it actually tends to pay off in the long run as more people have access to education and healthcare the workforce becomes stronger and tends to benefit all.

Alex_P:
So, a question for all of you anti-wealth-spreaders So, what's the magic number? What level of progressive income tax qualifies as "not socialist"? -- Alex

Well, the hallmark of Obama's plan isn't just progressive taxation, it's progressive taxation combined with "rebtable tax credits" for working-class families. These are not tax *deductions*; they are social welfare papyments. A rebatable tax credit means that you get money from the government even if you didn't pay taxes. For instance, let's say you are a working-class wage-earner who paid $1,000 in federal taxes. Obama gives you a tax credit for $5,000. A tax deduction would mean you would get $1,000 back - what you paid in taxes. A tax credit means you get $4,000 - the $1,000 in taxes, plus a $4,000 "rebate".

Obama is claiming they are "tax cuts," but they aren't. This "rebate" or tax credit is simply a wealth transfer. Tax cuts reduce your taxes. Tax credits increase your income when you pay no taxes. A tax credit, in short, is nothing more or less than an income-based welfare payment administered by the IRS. They are welfare-in-disguise, the dole, whatever you'd like to call it.

Clintonomics had similar taxes at the high end to Obama, but they didn't feature the enormous number of tax credits that Obama has proposed. Thus Clinton didn't "share the wealth": He confiscated it for arguably legitimate uses of government. If there was redistribution, it was indirect.

So Obama wants to use the tax code to directly redistribute on a grand scale, which is far more openly socialist/progressive agenda. It's less the rate than the redistribution.

I trust that answers your question!

Socialism isn't ideal because the dynamic nature of the economy is too fast for any bearacraucy to keep up.

So unless modern socialists have some sweet mind blowing software and algorythms that can do the work for them then any government involvement with the economy is just a bad thing. Right now is the worst time for a socialistically minded president... banks are being nationalized and we could be seeing the beginning a very steep slippery sloap once we have a democratic house and presidency.

BallPtPenTheif:
So unless modern socialists have some sweet mind blowing software and algorythms that can do the work for them then any government involvement with the economy is just a bad thing. Right now is the worst time for a socialistically minded president... banks are being nationalized and we could be seeing the beginning a very steep slippery sloap once we have a democratic house and presidency.

Ah, the rule of the excluded middle. If it's not A, it's the exact opposite of A; there's no such thing as a mixed economy grey.

The market and government both have their places and functions. Pure market economies and pure planned economies ignore that, and fail spectacularly. The question isn't whether to pick a purely-planned or purely-market economy; the question is what is the right mix, and which things will be the realm of government and which the market.

-- Steve

The market and government both have their place and function, sure. I haven't seen anyone here advocating anarcho-capitalism, however. You are arguing against a straw man if you claim that those who oppose Obama, or socialism, are entirely anti-government.

And far from making a poor argument, BallPtPenTheif is (perhaps less than eloquently) making no less than the same point as Nobel-prize winner FA Hayek. "Hayek argued that while, in centrally-planned economies, an individual or a select group of individuals must determine the distribution of resources, these planners will never have enough information to carry out this allocation reliably. The efficient exchange and use of resources, Hayek claimed, can be maintained only through the price mechanism in free markets."

Sounds a lot like...

BallPtPenTheif:
Socialism isn't ideal because the dynamic nature of the economy is too fast for any bearacraucy to keep up.

Archon:
The market and government both have their place and function, sure. I haven't seen anyone here advocating anarcho-capitalism, however. You are arguing against a straw man if you claim that those who oppose Obama, or socialism, are entirely anti-government.

Sorry if my post came across that way; that wasn't the intent.

My objection to BallPtPenTheif's point was that it assumed that any form of socialism automatically made an economy a command economy and thus incurred all the disadvantages of one. It doesn't, not necessarily; there is a broad range of "middle way" economies, ones that balance the market's quick reaction times and government's damping out of extreme swings.

It's the confining narrowness, the (IMO) false dichotomy, of "socialist vs capitalist" that I object to. Instead of having to choose between all-noodle or all-rice economy, I want a dim sum economy. (And a cool fortune cookie, if possible.)

-- Steve

Archon, thanks for iterating that my opposition to socialism doesn't necessarily mean that I am for a total free market.

However, though I have nothing personal against socialism it will always bear the falt of being too slow to fluidly adapt to the world it is designed to function in. Ironically, we live in a technological era where the idea of a well maintained socialist state could possibly function utilizing all of the information gathering tools that we have at our disposal via the internet and computers in general.

Yet, I have yet to hear any new or insightful ideas from modern socialists (or Barak Obama) that atttempt to capitalize on this. A socialist movement from Google would be both refreshing and frightening.

Mistah Kurtz:

jthm:

Because the way the system is set up now, the rich continue to get richer by fleecing money off of people who would be rich by the efforts of their labor in a fair market environment LIKE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BUT DON'T!

Actually, in a capitalist society the rich are supposed to make money off the fruits of their labor. They use their money to start businesses and the laborers do the manual work to earn a living from the rich person. It's called "capitalism", get it?

Actually yes, I do get it, I just don't agree with it. A system that allows the privileged few to get richer is fine, but when it enables those few to keep the rest from getting rich also then it's a corrupt system that should be amended, altered or abolished altogether. Capitalism is not a sacred institution of the country, but just one form of overall economic policy. There are others and and it wouldn't be a bad thing to pay attention to them and see where they get it right and then implement them.

Health Care Should be amended in this country to be a constitutionally garuanteed right. Government exists to protect and assist it's people. If it can't help out when people are injured or dying, what the hell good is it? Might as well tear it down and start again. By the way, Hillary supported socialized medicine. Obama doesn't.

Government exists to protect people, yes, but to what extent? Paying our way? Being our mommys and daddys? Making sure we're all happy? Please answer me on whether or not food should also be considered a constitutional right - you need food far more than you need health care to survive, so why should people have to pay for their own food? Shouldn't the government take care of it for us? Shouldn't they make sure we have a place to live, and nice cars to drive too? After all, you need shelter to survive and transportation to be a productive worker.

Standard argument of someone who doesn't lack any of those things. If you're able to get those things yourself then great, but a bare minimum should be assured for those who can't.

Bill Ayers was a terrorist during the 1960s. Obama was a child in the 1960s. If you can show me some photos of him taking part personally in a strike against America alongside Bill Ayers then you have a case. Otherwise it's a nonissue.

Once again, an Obama supporter is deliberately missing the point. NO ONE SAID OBAMA IS A TERRORIST. NO ONE SAID HE TOOK PART IN THE BOMBINGS! NO ONE! NOT ONE PERSON!
The claim being made is that he's the kind of man who's willing to form extensive relationships with unrepentant terrorists - Obama even recommended one of Ayer's books on education, a man who should be as far from the education system as possible. This coupled with his ties to black liberation theology, a far left racist sect of christianity, and his membership in the New Party, there's good reason to question Obama's past and wonder about what kind of man he is today.

Is the book good? Does it have good points? Then why should we care who wrote it? Further, he's distancing himself from those groups as much as possible. McCain (like most republicans) has been endorsed by the terrorist organization KKK, and he didn't condemn it. I don't think it would be fair to blame him for not acknowledging the group and I don't think it's fair to blame Obama for people he has known.

JOE THE PLUMBER IS NOT A FUCKING PLUMBER! He is an entrepenuer and investor who bought a plumbing company. I promise you that when your toilet fills up with shit, Joe has never and will never show up with some drano and a snake to flush it out. He might know enough to fix his own plumbing and power to him, but no plumber makes over $250k a year.

I fail to see your point. So we should punish the entrepreneurs who create the jobs that put the working class to work?

The point is that the McCain camp is painting him as a middle class average working man and he isn't. He doesn't need government help, those of us making pitiful sums of money that are barely enough to get by do.
Punish, no. Tax, yes. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.

During their presidencies both FDR and Eisenhower instituted major reforms that could be called socialist as easily as anything Obama is suggesting. And so what if we make a few more programs socialist in nature. It's not as if he'll be elected and we'll all take down the American flag and start flying the hammer and cycle. If a solution works then we need to take advantage of it and not willfully ignore our problem because it's the same idea that a country we've never been on good terms with liked the idea once upon a time too.

Not everyone agrees with what FDR did, myself included. Pouring a bunch of money into public works programs that did nothing was a huge waste of money. We are WORRIED that Obama is going to do what FDR did.

A huge waste of money that created jobs and fixed the economy you mean? Wartime production was not solely responsible for that, no matter how much conservatives like to believe it was. Were that the case then the war in Iraq should have helped the economy, not hindered it. Obama should do what FDR did, because what FDR did was working and would have worked even without World War 2 to spur production on.

Bottom line is that conservatives have had 8 years and in that 8 years we've seen things go from good to bad to worse. Our economy is falling to crap. The war is as much a quagmire as Vietnam. Taxation has hit all the wrong brackets hardest. Our international standing has fallen as has the value of the U.S. dollar, to record lows. McCain is 4 more years of failure. Obama is at worst an unknown. Given the choice between failure and unknown, I know which I'd pick.