October 28, 2008

If we're all supposed to see that Obama is a socialist, and then he wins by a landslide...

... does that mean there's a mandate for socialism?

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Buford Gooch said...

It seems the problem is that he will get away with denying his socialist programs until after the election. Then, we will all see them, and, if he is the winner, we will be horrified at what we have done. Republican landslide in 2010

Meade said...

How big of a landslide are we talking? LBJ? Nixon '72?
In that case, not just socialism - that would be a mandate to go straight to a classless and stateless society. Utopia!

Seven Machos said...

No. It will be more like, whoa, what is this? And Americans will be mortified. As a de-bonus, it won't help that socialism never seems to work out like the eggheads plan. Nor do little steps toward socialism. By Year Two, Democrats will still be trying to pin blame on that bastard Bush, but the middle and even the reasonable left won't be buying it.

Vote McCain!

Seven Machos said...

P.S. It will not be a landslide for Obama. Obama has always over-polled, for whatever reason.

This election, strangely, has been a decision about Obama. That's not a radical statement. I think everyone would agree to it. He doesn't poll above 48 or 49 percent in the polls I have seen by pollsters that actually predicted the 2004 election correctly or nearly correctly.

If anything, the undecideds will swarm to McCain (as undecideds tend to do at the last minute; they vote for the challenger, in this case McCain).

Maxine Weiss said...

They never believe it at the time of voting. They think it's hyperbole. Until Pelosi get ahold of your 401k. And the Capital Gains Tax explodes, and creeping Eminent Domain, .....

Lots of people voted for Gray Davis. Was that a mandate? But, that was able to be corrected.

How do you correct the PLO once it gains a foothold into policy meetings ?

Chet said...

Nobody's thinking checks and balances.

What it will mean to have 100% Democrat rule, and what they can do with that.

Biden doesn't have to explain a "generated crisis" because the Media and Althouse have decided the election.

Nobody ever regrets it until after it's too late, and you realize Khalidi/Ayers/Pflaeger were much much more than just acquaintences.

Buford Gooch said...

It's sort of like those elitist Republicans (Noonan, Fried, Buckley, Parker, etc) who are voting for Obama, thinking he won't govern like he has voted his entire (short) career. They hear it, they know what it means, they just won't believe it until it's way too late.

PJ said...

It means a mandate for socialism will be proclaimed by those who favor socialism.

Seven Machos said...

the Media and Althouse have decided the election

Come on. She's got a big enough head already.

Meade said...

literally.

Chet said...

Where's the "correction" if you've got a Gov. with no checks and balances.

Early on Althouse talked about flexibility. But, where's the flexibility going to come from if a President has a Democrat House and Senate ????

What would be the incentive for flexibility and evolving policy in that scenario ????

If he's already measuring drapes, and Greek Columns..... Althouse considers that flexibility and fluid ?

Ann Althouse said...

I said "if." The question is about the problem of calling Obama a socialist. If he wins big, how do we interpret the win.

I would like to characterize him as a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate, so that if he wins, we can say that's what he got elected to be.

Stupe said...

Honey, they said the same thing when Gray Davis won in a landslide.

franglosaxon said...

I just wonder how big the victory margin would have to be to get these idiots to stop talking about radical college professors, false birth certificates, maddrassas and the like. If Obama wins by 10 million votes, would they shut up and maybe judge him by his performance in office?

Or will they try to impeach him like they did Clinton and bring the country to a standstill?

Stupe said...

Moderate? On what Planet is going to parties with PLO Khalidi "moderate" ?????

Althouse: if 43 other Presidents were able to release their birth certificates, why can't this one?

They're talking about gutting the Freedom of Information Act, over the whole birth certificate flap.

That's moderate?

Seven Machos said...

I would like to characterize him as a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate

Wherein Althouse accidentally hits on the exact problem with Obama. That's how you'd like to characterize him, huh? Really? How come you'd only like to characterize him that way? Why don't you know, like for a fact, how this man should be characterized?

The fact is, you don't. You are projecting. The man is an empty vessel. That's all fine and good, but we ought to know what we are getting. How can you vote for someone who you have no real idea how to characterize? That's simply insane.

Vote McCain! The tool you know.

franglosaxon said...

p.s. re: divided government (grrreat closing argument btw-- really engaging)

there is a congressional election in 2010 as I recall...

Chet said...

The Hawaiian Judge (A Clinton Appointee) simply ignored the Freedom of Information Act.

Pelosi, has gone on record saying she wants to tap into everyone's 401K accounts. And, under a Demo House and Senate....they can do it !

You call that "moderate" ????

Chet said...

BOTTOM LINE: What's it gonna take for Althouse to divest herself from this crazy decision, borne of "Cruel Neutrality".

If you reversed yourself on the way to the Voting Booth with Jimmy Carter.....what will it take to do that again?

And the situation is far more dire this time.

Buford Gooch said...

If Obama is elected, it will be like the whole country went on a drunken binge, then they will wake up and see him in office and say, collectively, "My God, I must have really been drunk to do *that*.

It's.....Mrs. Hornblower ! said...

Every other past President had no problem revealing a birth certificate.

Isn't that part of access and full-disclosure ? Don't we want transparency?

I don't really care where he was born, but what this whole thing tells you, is that if someone so arrogant and smug can thumb his nose at this thing, this early in the game........down-the-line.....what else will he stonewall about ?

It sets bad precedent. The Hawaiian Judge ignored FOIA.

But, then these people don't care about the Constitution, when they've got the Media and voters all sewn up.

People never realize until it's too late.

Stephanie said...

No. It means that the educational system in this country needs overhauling. Until postmodernism is purged and classical liberal philosophy is reintroduced in the classroom, we are doomed.

Buford Gooch said...

I wish I could remember which blog I read it on (it may have been this one), but the rumor is out that Obama and the Dems want to add two more seats to the Supreme Court. They could do it with a simple majority, no amendment needed. Now, why would they want to do that?

franglosaxon said...

I would like to know how anyone can watch the following and take all these cries of "socialism" from McCain supporters without choking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

JOHN MCCAIN IS A TROTSKYITE !!!11!

Stephanie said...

Nice to see the frenchy has the astroturf comment of the day. Like I haven't seen that at 30 different sites today posted by the acolytes of the O!.

When you learn to think for yourself, I might have some use for you. Wanna cracker?

Buford Gooch said...

"I would like to know how anyone can watch the following and take all these cries of "socialism" from McCain supporters without choking:"

It does make me choke. I wish we had a major party candidate who understood wealth creation, but we don't. The one likely to do the least damage, however, is McCain.

jimspice said...

If McCain wins, will that mean there's a mandate for Ben-Gay & Metamucil?

Of course not; to victor goes the spoils. The losers do not get to write the history books.

spice

Seven Machos said...

Buford -- If that was a serious proposal, it would be all over Drudge. Let's concentrate on what we know, which is that Obama is a quasi-socialist who wants to tax wealth to the heavens. This is bad only because it will seriously harm an already-ailing economy. His foreign policy also sucks. He wants to negotiate with Iran and invade Pakistan. That won't work.

Vote McCain!

Maxine Weiss said...

These people still think "socialism" is a quaint little term used by the avante-garde, just for the novelty of it. ---The fake-Euro sophistication of the word.

They're too young to recognize the real threat of the USSR, which all seems so far away, and just an 80s relic, and Georgia was simply an abstract symbol.

"Mark my words" says Biden, who said that knowing that nobody, of any consequence, who was listening would care.

Buford Gooch said...

Seven Machos: Already voted McCain. I was going to hold my nose and do so, but with Palin as the VP. I did it happily.

PJ said...

I would like to characterize him as a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate, so that if he wins, we can say that's what he got elected to be.

Wait, you mean we don't get to change our mind after the election about how we characterize him? If we prefer to mischaracterize him as a moderate later for tactical reasons, then we have to start now? But he gets to switch back and forth as his short-term interests shift? Hardly seems fair.

OldGrouchy said...

Whether Obama were to win by a landslide or by 1-vote, he would treat that as a mandate! He would implement Socialism as soon as he would fell that he would have an effective shot at doing so. If not the right time, he would wait for a better opportunity.

That said, I doubt that Obama will win! But, then I'm for McCain so maybe I'm biased!

EDH said...

Dobbs: If you're socialists, where's your mandate?

Gold Hat: Mandate?

We ain't got no mandate.

We don't need no mandate!

I don't have to show you any stinkin' mandate!

Rose said...

If he has to pretend to be something he is not - which he is doing - it is not a mandate,

We have that here, too, the activist candidates, backed by new powerful machines, rail against the 'good old boys' (when they have their own little boy network that is a thousand times as virulent) - they run on a conservative platform, anti-grow house (for example), and they manage to get the law enforcement endorsement, as well as the sleepy labor Unions who don't realize they are endorsing their own demise) - they get elected on that conservative platform and then declare a mandate for "Progressive" values...

And what are "Progressive" values? Shut everything down. No port development, no activity on the beach, no horses on the beach, no timber industry, no shipping industry, no nothing - but, well, we have the pot industry, so everything illegal is condoned, while legitimate businesses are forced to close.

That's what you're getting, Ann. If nothing else proves what Obama will do, his Annenberg Challenge performance does, and it should horrify everyone in education.

Obama's people are all about accruing power.

They use the courts as weapons. They create "groups' out of thin air and call them a 'growing coalition.'

And once in power, decay, and destruction. Everything you think is important will be gone.

Stupe said...

"I would like to characterize him as a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate,"---Althouse

Have you checked his record? He voted "present" 30 times. How is that the least bit thoughtful ?

Moderate is not Khaliki/Ayers/Rezko/Wright.....

--if it walk like a duck.

Amazing that so-called "educated" people cannot recognize risk when it stares them in the face.

Seven Machos said...

It's easy to grin
when your ship has come in.
And you've got the stock market beat.
But the man worthwhile
is the man who can smile
when the press fawns all over his feet.

Stupe said...

MAXINE:

"" These people still think "socialism" is a quaint little term used by the avante-garde, just for the novelty of it. ---The fake-Euro sophistication of the word.

They're too young to recognize the real threat of the USSR, which all seems so far away, and just an 80s relic, and Georgia was simply an abstract symbol.

"Mark my words" says Biden, who said that knowing that nobody, of any consequence, who was listening would care."""

___________________________


BINGO

Rose said...

These people still think "socialism" is a quaint little term used by the avante-garde, just for the novelty of it. ---The fake-Euro sophistication of the word.

They're too young to recognize the real threat of the USSR, which all seems so far away, and just an 80s relic, and Georgia was simply an abstract symbol.

"Mark my words" says Biden, who said that knowing that nobody, of any consequence, who was listening would care.


Well put. Maxine. The word doesn't mean anything to people right now. they are so blinded by Bush hatred they cannot see. They got a glimpse with Joe the Plumber, but then they were re-hypnotized.

Clyde said...

Nah, it just means that Obama will have flim-flammed the rubes with a bait-and-switch, promising a nebulous "hope" and "change" while preparing something a bit more radical.

"Socialists? Not US! We're Democrats, comrade! Hey, how much do you have in your wallet? And your 401K? It's time to spread the wealth, in the name of fairness. You DO want to be fair, don't you? Or do you want to visit one of Secretary of Re-Education Ayers' camps?"

dualdiagnosis said...

No, the Obamao supporters reflexively defend any attack deemed negative, it is of a whole to them. They have bought hook, line and sinker the idea that Obama's princely demeanor tells the story, there is nothing to fear.

All attempts at pointing out his past and his buddies fall on deaf ears, it doesn't fit the narrative.

The "messiah" moniker gets laughed off, but he is seen as pure and godly, if he is elected he will wash away our sins and bring down retribution on the greedy.

Christians learn to do for others and to help those in need in church and act on it in their lives. The Left, believes that government is there to do those things, the rhetoric is the same ie. "we are in this together" et al. That is why you see two caricatures of the right, either they are evil for opposing all these "wonderful" programs or they are just plain stupid.

Stephanie said...

My son's girlfriend and her family are from Bosnia. You can bet they are voting McCain. They have seen the march of socialism and want no part of it.

Chip Ahoy said...

No. It does not mean there's a mandate for socialism. Socialism is a bad word in this country, except for, you know, socialists. It means there's a denial about socialism, or it means people define socialism differently. Or it means we already out socialize most socialized countries, so what the hell.

Some people think it means government owns the means of production.

Others believe it means forced redistribution of wealth by government.

Others believe it means things like public libraries, coast guard, medicare and food stamps housing assistance etc., an altogether lovelier society.

Still others believe it means plain ol' compassion. (That would be compassion for those individuals who manage to make it through the obstacle course of birth controls, contraceptives, prophylactics, morning after drugs, abortions, and straight up infanticide and then manage to survive a life of drugs, gangs, crime, incest, absent parents, broken families, up to compassionate eugenics, that kind of compassion, extended even to non-citizens who manage to wade across, swim across, float across, fly across, truck across, fling themselves across, crawl and claw across our borders there to squat illegally, that kind of compassion.)

OK, wait. I change my answer, yes it'll mean there's a mandate for socialism, and majority wins, so I intend to be flexible on this and completely flip and become entirely for it. Now GIVE ME YOUR MONEY! (I have my eye on an upgraded camera. Might as well use your money instead of my own.)

The video posted earlier about Obama bombshell redistribution was at 500,000 views when I started reading comments, it was at 1,200,000 by the time I finished. Most were agin' it. Really agin' it. I enjoyed viewing the profiles of the people making the comments. It cheered me to know there are so many level-headed people out there, even if they're outnumbered, even in YouTubeLandia where you least expect to find them. The ones who supported the content in the video were all douchebags of the first order and mean spirited too. Plus they said bad words. Ick. They got low ratings so YouTube closes those poorly rated comments so you have to purposefully open them to read them, which I did, and they never failed to dismay.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

I pity the poor saps who are sitting here fretting about secret plans, socialism, black helicopters and the Obama-Biden cabal to forbid horses on beaches. Really. Get a grip you maudlin fools. W. Bush was antithetical to EVERYTHING I believed in-- environmental regulation, diplomacy, civil liberties, scientific research. I have survived these 8 years and the world didn't end. It's just plenty messed up at the moment.

GET OVER IT

Clyde said...

A lot of Russians probably thought that Lenin was "a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate" back in 1917. Wishing doesn't make it so.

jprapp said...

Sunstein notes the bizarre irony (Ben Smith's blog) that Obama’s redistribution argument is actually a conservative, narrow technical-legal argument that legislation and not courts should shape the terms of redistribution by taxes paying for positive rights.

Obama’s election alone wouldn't be a mandate for socialism. Congress is still a necessary player.

After an election, both pragmatists and rights-ideologues have plenty of hifalutin ways to measure shifting sentiments across the population (empirical studies) so as to jettison any unpopular socialism -- if Obama is more ideologue than pragmatist about "rights," then his ideology justifies him in deferring to Congress if Congress jettisons socialism, and, if Obama is more pragmatist than ideologue, then he'll still know he can't railroad socialism through without Congress.

A third option – If Obama is yet unformed or only partly formed in his oscillations between ideology and pragmatism, then his future shifts between them as he finds his way are still only about as important as daily weather reports compared to the possibility (this is an empirical matter) that Obama's election is a tsunami of negative popular judgment against Bush.

In other words, Obama’s election could be a mandate to have a “learner” in the White House.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

And if you like socialism, you should really try the last 8 years of Republican rule. Try billions of dollars "redistributed" from taxpayers to contractors without a bidding process. A president who spread the wealth to his friends in oil and arms companies. A vice president who actually USED TO RUN the main beneficiary of contractor dollars, which were redistributed from MY POCKET AND YOURS. 1 trillion dollars redistributed into the Iraqi desert. I'd like to see that panty waist Obama pull a caper like that!

Not to mention 8 years of solid budgets and fiscal stewardship that have certainly paid off: privatized gains, SOCIALIZED LOSSES.

Stephanie said...

Some people think it means government owns the means of production.

Others believe it means forced redistribution of wealth by government.

Others believe it means things like public libraries, coast guard, medicare and food stamps housing assistance etc., an altogether lovelier society.



Exactly why a classic liberal educational tract is so much in need. Deconstruction has allowed most words to lose their meanings.

"It depend on what the definition of 'is' is." Prime example....

Seven Machos said...

Montagne -- You sounded sane in your first post but crazy in your second. Which is it? Seriously, dude. If you can believe all that absurd shit, then surely McCain supporters are entitled to believe absurd shit, too.

You'd be better off in your pose if you didn't spout absurd shit while advising others not to spout absurd shit. Don't you think?

reader_iam said...

Art.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Stephanie-- define socialism. Do it. I dare you.

Seven Machos said...

Montagne -- The point of several posts here has been that socialism is no longer definable. Hence, your brave challenge is exceedingly dumb.

reginacarshare said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saskboy said...

(Sorry, had to repost this with my correct ID)

It amuses me that "socialism" is a dirty word like "communism" yet most Americans couldn't define either correctly, or explain in their own words using logic or examples why each is 'bad'.

Stephanie said...

It is an economic system of collective ownership and management of the means of production and the distribution of goods and/or services including, but not limited to centralized planning and directives that are formulated such that the individual is subsumed to service of the collective whether it be communally or governmentally centralized.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Hmm. Exceedingly dumb, eh, Macho. The person I asked, who is named Stephanie, not Macho, seems to have a VERY definite view of what the word means. I want to know more about her views on bosnian socialism and how Obama's policies compare.

p.s. Obama doesn't want to invade Pakistan and never said he did... However, Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, so who is crazy?

Seven Machos said...

Socialism and communism are bad. Does an average citizen need to know any more than that?

I have no clue what trichinosis is, or syphillis. But I know I don't want them because they are bad.

At play here is an intellectual arrogance that is itself stupefying. Here's a better question, leftists: why do all your big-government policy prescriptions suck so badly, even though you are so much smarter than all us average Americans? Answer that. I dare you. Schmucks.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Stephanie-- that is the definition of communism. Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax to 1994 levels falls a little short, don't you think?

reader_iam said...

communally or governmentally centralized

Now, that's interesting, that construction.

Seven Machos said...

Pakistan on Friday criticized U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. USA TODAY. Estimated time it took to ferret information: 14 seconds.

What else am I "wrong" about?

Montagne Mointaigne said...

You mean big proposals like No Child Left Behind or the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, Macho? I don't know, ask the Republican party.

I can tell you that a political party whose core belief is that government is bad will probably do a bad job running the government. Guess what, they did!

Montagne Mointaigne said...

Macho: You said Obama wants to invade Pakistan. I said you were lying. You failed to disprove that. Next.

By the way, the government is currently doing what Obama suggested and attacking targets in Pakistan. McCain supports Petraeus all the way, so I doubt he opposes those strikes.

So you have no legs to stand on...

Seven Machos said...

Montagne -- That post makes no sense whatsoever. You suggest, correctly, that Bush governed in many ways as an irresponsible spender. Then, you jump strangely to the charge that Republicans can't govern because they don't like government.

Which is it? Does Bush like government? If he doesn't, why the huge programs?

You are hopelessly confused. Conservatives like government fine. They don't like big, all-encompassing government.

Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan did a pretty good job governing. They didn't like big government.

Basically, dude, you sound like a twit who wants to score points however you can, sensibly or not. I hate commenters like you.

Seven Machos said...

Wow. Again. I most certainly did prove that Obama said that he wants to invade Pakistan.

You suggest otherwise, and then you charge that the government is doing WHAT OBAMA SUGGESTED, which you say is sending the military into Pakistan, which is, by any definition, an invasion of sovereign territory.

We shall have no further truck with each other until you can make some semblance of sense and not completely contradict yourself like an idiot in two short paragraphs again and again.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

My point is that Republicans lied about fixing big government. They made the government bigger.

The thing is, though, that they are bad at running the government. So unless you can pull a small government conservative candidate out of your hat, I suggest you go with the dems. The New Deal had a pretty good run and many old folk have fond memories of it.

p.s. "you sound like a twit who wants to score points however you can, sensibly or not" is, not surprisingly, exactly what I would say about your dumb ass. Isn't life grand?

Stephanie said...

Not my views of Bosnia.

My, hopefully, DIL views of Bosnia and those views are informing HER vote. I have heard some of the stories her parents and grandparents tell of living in the former Yugoslavia.

I have heard their stories about the disappearances, the struggles, the joy at coming to the US after waiting on an immigrant list for 5 years.

It gives you some perspective and appreciation of what you tend to take for granted...

Montagne Mointaigne said...

do you know the difference between the words "invade" and "strike targets"?

I don't "charge" that the U.S. is, as we speak, striking targets in Pakistan. That is a fact, Jack. Try picking up a newspaper.

Stephanie said...

Communism is a subset of Socialism. It further establishes that there are no classes; whereas, under Socialism there will still be class distictions. Which is why academes and the Bill Ayers of the world don't opt for communism. They envision themselves in the ruling class.

Seven Machos said...

do you know the difference between the words "invade" and "strike targets"?

Okay, a little more, only because I am curious. Suppose that Mexico sends its Special Forces into Houston to kill some people? Would you consider that an invasion? Suppose that Canada blows up some houses in Detroit? Invasion?

You are really a tool, dude. It's extraordinary.

Stephanie said...

And I purposefully used both communal and governmental as many tribes are not "governments" but are most definitely classified as socialist societies but are not "governments" in the usual construct.

reader_iam said...

I'm not going to vote for Sen. Obama. Yet I do think there's something to be said about recalibrating our relationship with Pakistan based on how it's served us on a number of fronts and what it's enabled. Do people not actually get the socio-politico cultural dynamics-in-friction of that region? Not to mention more than just a few uncomfortable facts and the obvious implications/extensions which result.

Seven Machos said...

I am all for recalibrating our relationship with Pakistan. That's in the works, no matter who the next president is. I'm not for invading, or "striking targets," as if there is some difference.

Montagne Mointaigne said...

dude-- wake up-- WE ARE ATTACKING PAKISTAN ALREADY. If part of your list of points against Obama was that his foreign policy "sucks," then you have a problem with the military strategy as it stands, and again, if you aren't in favor then you need to pull some other candidate out of your hat, because I will bet your bottom dollar that McCain agrees with this tactic.

I even found you a fox news article about it because I know how you trust them.

And look-- the U.S. is going to negotiate with the Taliban! I guess General Petraeus should be fired for wanting to talk to terrorists like Obama wants!

reader_iam said...

Stephanie: I'm interested in seeing you talk about your construct in terms of the United States. What's your definition of "communally or governmentally centralized" in terms of that germane context?

Stephanie said...

And as for a longing for a New Deal II like FDRs New Deal, I hope not. The consensus forming some 50 years hence is that the New Deal actually retarded the recovery of the US from the Great Depression of the 30s. It was only after the Industrialized War complex was dialed in for WWII that the economy had any meaningful recovery.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh02/ohanian-021008.pdf

Be careful what you wish for...

Nite all.

Stephanie said...

Reader... I'll make a note and follow up in the AM. It's a little late here in Atlanta.

Seven Machos said...

Well, Montagne, a few posts ago, Obama never said he wanted to invade Pakistan. You failed utterly in that argument. Then, you suggested some distinction between invading and "striking targets." Now, you have come full circle and report that we are "attacking" Pakistan. (Your assumption about my views about FOX News is...interesting.)

As I say, I'm done with you. I prefer discussions with people who have some idea of what they are talking about. Thanks for playing, though.

Eli Blake said...

So if an Obama win is supposed to mean a mandate for socialism, then a McCain/Palin win is supposed to be a mandate for something, but I'm not even sure I have the words to describe it.

Truly, truly bizarre is all I can say.

jdeeripper said...

Althouse - "If we're all supposed to see that Obama is a socialist, and then he wins by a landslide..."... does that mean there's a mandate for socialism?

And if McCain wins does that mean there's a mandate for White racism?

Most people in the world will see it that way. Most White liberal Americans and all black Americans will see it that way.

John Cleese on Sarah Palin

"When the Americans really put their foot in it was reelecting George Bush.

I mean the rest of the world was flabbergasted.

And I think it can be almost fixed like that (finger snap) by electing Obama because it really indicates this is not fundamentally a backwoods, redneck racist society."


Let's be clear - this election is White conservative America AGAINST THE REST OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!!!(with the exception of the majority of Israeli Jews who have been written out of the human species anyway by most of the people in the world.)

Mandate for socialism? Yeah, basically. But the term is social programs. Government tax funded social programs.

You know not swamps, wetlands. Not jungles, rain forests. Not negroes, African Americans.

Here's the issue. Two guys go into a bar. A tall, young, sexually charismatic black guy and a short old, asexual White guy.

They approach a single White woman on each side of her. She knows what they want and she's there to pick one to go home with that night.

The black guy says ...."Baby, you're different. There's something special about you I can't tell what it is exactly but you've got it. How's about we go back to your place. And speaking of your place how about I pay your mortgage for the next 6 months and make your car payments for the next 12 months?

"Oh, and one more thing I really hope you aren't racist like some other White women I've seen in this bar. What'll it be gorgeous?"


The White guy says ..."Friend, we live in a great country don't we. I have quite a bit of experience loving this country and I would love to share my love of country with you. I would like to warn you that the gentleman who has made a previous offer to you is a rather inexperienced and not altogether trustworthy individual.

I can't agree with his offers to you but I will say that I know somebody who might have a job opening for you. I can't promise you anything but I'll look into it. What'll it be friend?"


That single White woman at the bar is the most important swing vote in this election.

Now who do you think she's going to choice to go home with? Which guy has closed the deal?

And the answer "neither creep" doesn't count. This woman is desperate.

blake said...

All Democrats have mandates, regardless of margin of victory.

No Republicans have mandates, regardless of margin of victory.

reader_iam said...

And the answer "neither creep" doesn't count.

Idiot asshole. (Also intellectually unimaginative, and therefore overly controlling of other people's perhaps nonconforming responses.)

This woman is desperate.

Exploitive jerk. (Also, apparently, unaware of obvious irony, even having flung it only to have it ricochet onto one's own nose [knows].)

Daryl said...

Yeah, keep coming up with excuses why we shouldn't vet Obama.

Hoosier Daddy said...

does that mean there's a mandate for socialism?

Well most people don't think he's a socialist although I have listened to him enough to consider him one. As for his supporters, honestly I think when he speaks they hear HOPE!! CHANGE!! and then the rest of it sounds like the grownups in the Peanuts cartoons.

Fact is, most people don't make $250K per year so they arent' going to be taxed and they don't care. Fuck the rich and all that. The mentality of the populace right now, especially the 'youth vote' can be summed up with that SNL skit from a few years back when one of the cast asks the 'president' Where's my stuff????

People think socialism is cool until they start having to pay for it.

Cedarford said...

jdeeripper - Let's be clear - this election is White conservative America AGAINST THE REST OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!!!(with the exception of the majority of Israeli Jews who have been written out of the human species anyway by most of the people in the world.)

You overestimate "Our Special Friends" affinity for Republican conservatives.

Israel is a socialist country. The average Israeli despises Republican values (with the exception of Right-Wingers that think Republicans will dispose of Israel's enemies AND Let Settlers continue more land grabs.)

A recent poll showed 65% wanted Obama to be the next President.

The number of Jewish-Americans supporting Republicans is even lower. No matter how much Republicans say they love Israel above all nations and promise they will do whatever Israel wants (Palin: Never ever 2nd guess Israel!) - Jews generally despise Republicans. Especially the backwards Christian Zionists that are seen as guillable tools. And work hard against them in the media and with donor dollars (In 2000, AIPAC bragged that Dems should respect AIPAC clout because 50% of the money in DNC came from wealthy, activist Jewish donors).

In Florida, Jews polled went Obama 79-21% in elderly voters, 68-24%, with 7% undecided in younger and middle-age voters.

Republicans would appear to be better off everytime they are tempted to say "help Israel" to substitute "help Latin America, Mexico" and the Latin people here and there instead. Hispanics, and Asians, for that matter, might indeed find a home with Republicans if the Republicans stopped ignoring them for a Neocon focus on the ME.

The majority of Jews were never with the Republicans, and never will be.

*************
It's.....Mrs. Hornblower ! said...
Every other past President had no problem revealing a birth certificate.


That's just stupid. Historically, most Presidents were born before there was any such thing as a birth certificate in use. There was a notation in town vital records of births.

People are so wrapped up in the myth that the only way to be a citizen is to be born on US soil to an illegal or anyone else (jus solis citizenship) that they forget that citizenship by blood (jus solis) has always existed and wasn't in need of a Constitutional Amendment to justify why ex-slaves were made citizens.

No one really doubts Obama was born and made a citizen by blood by his US mother. He happened to have been born in Hawaii, but it wouldn't have mattered in the skightest if he had been born in Kenya, Moldava - or like George Romney in Mexico, Goldwater in Arizona Territory, or John McCain in Panama to at least one American parent. He is a jus sanguinis, native-born citizen.

And the other crock floating around the Right-Wing fever swamps is that his Mom and Indonesian step-Dad made him of Indonesian citizenship and "surrendered" his US citizenship - therefore he can't be President. The crock being that even if they tried, which only looney Fundie fanatics believe - they couldn't. Only the person can surrender their own rights and renounce their own citizenship, after they reach 18.

EnigmatiCore said...

No. If everyone did see, as opposed to supposed to be seeing, that he is a socialist, and he wins by a landslide, then there would be a mandate.

But people, including our gracious host, do not see that he is a socialist and will be voting for him. Hence, no mandate.

EnigmatiCore said...

Oh, and mandate or not, he's going to give us a healthy amount of it.

Pogo said...

It would be a mandate for socialism if and only if Obama and the Democrats ran as socialists and spoke in favor of socialism in their policy papers, ads, and interviews.

As it stands, they specifically deny the Marxist content and origin of their plans (see your post on the Biden interview, i.e., "are you kidding?"). One has to wonder, if socialism is so intellectually superior and defensible, why is this the love that dare not speak its name?

There are still older voters who know what socialism means and it scares the shit out of them. That's why FDR had to call Social Security "insurance" rather than 'welfare', when the latter was the truth and the former an outright lie, as we have come to learn.

Nevertheless, I believe it is a mandate for socialism however, as the majority of Americans does indeed favor a repeatedly proven failed economic plan that promises rainbows and bunnies and horses that shit marshmallows.

Baby boomers and those younger were never taught the ravages of socialism, only its benefits. They have repeatedly been schooled that capitalism is the source of all evil. From high school throiugh college, their teachers have all preached the socialist gospel (for it is nearly a religion), and they have not been exposed to any other thoughts at all.

Socialism has won. And therefore this country's experiment is over, for that is not America as founded. Goodbye to all that. Congratulations on your victory. You have doomed a few generations of future subjects (no longer citizens) to penury and servitiude.

Goddamned baby boomers.

EnigmatiCore said...

"The question is about the problem of calling Obama a socialist. If he wins big, how do we interpret the win."

First off, it does not matter how we interpret the win.

Regardless of what we want, if Obama wins he will push for what he wants, claiming a mandate. And with Pelosi and Reid in charge of swelled majorities, he'll get it.

Ergo, what we think about it does not matter all that much, once he is elected. He's going to claim a mandate either way, and even if he doesn't he's not going to feel very constrained.

Darcy said...

As far as I'm concerned, Obama did run as a socialist, Pogo. And boldy so.

So my answer is, depressingly, yes.
The mandate will be socialism. Whether people admit that is what they voted for or not. Isn't it pretty not to think so?

I'm still hoping for a miracle, though...

MadisonMan said...

A McCain/Palin win is a mandate for split power in government.

bleeper said...

Absolutely. It has worked so well for Venezuela that we should try it here.

You would like to characterize him as Joe Stalin with a human face - well guess what, Ann, if my aunt had a package she would be my uncle. Wouldn't it make more sense to see things as they are rather than project your own vision on to the blank slate that is BHO?

Pogo said...

Darcy, I agree they ran with socialists policies.

But few people Ann's age or younger seems to know what the word means, or why it has been a dirty word in the past, or why we fought wars against countries that pushed its precepts.

The Democrats were however afraid to use or acknowledge the term "socialism" outright, because the elderly in the US still retain a gut feeling that it is 'something bad', even if they canot say why (otherwise, Bidens horror at the Marxism question makes no sense).

To the boomers, it's just Sweden and national health care and cuddly kittens. Like their experiments with unrestrained drug use and sexual 'freedom', they had to learn the unavoidable laws of gravity the hard way, by crushing addictions and the associated crimes of drug abuse, and the scourge of syphilis and AIDS for free sex.

Such will be the lesson for free money. The baby boomers: the worst generation.

jdeeripper said...

Cedarford said...You overestimate "Our Special Friends" affinity for Republican conservatives.

A recent poll showed 65% wanted Obama to be the next President.


Is that Israeli Jews or all Israelis including Palestinians?

And I never assumed the Israelis were pro-Republican. Only that they trusted McCain more since Lieberman pretty much has his forearm up McCain's ass and is working him like a puppet.

So I'll revise my point. Let's be clear - this election is mostly White conservative America men AGAINST THE REST OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!!!

Paul said...

"So I'll revise my point. Let's be clear - this election is mostly White conservative America men AGAINST THE REST OF THE HUMAN SPECIES!!!"

Informed by whom and of what?

Pogo said...

jdee

Where true elections have been allowed, a relatively recent development in the history of humans, the question has always been one of hard freedom versus soft subservience (i.e. a return to being subjects under a ruler).

Being a citizen has always been harder than being a subject. But the benefits of freedom were always sweeter than the protection by and subservience to a lord and ruler.

White conservative?
Well, Western liberalism is more exact, but yes indeed those precepts have always fought against the rest of the world. It's why they hate us and have always hated us.

And we are on the cusp of joining that cult of servitude again.

Oxbay said...

Not quite Althouse. Obama has to embrace the label and explain why socialism would be good for our country.

Although there is a strong streak of favorability for socialism within the Democrat caucus the leadership would never say, or permit to be said by the backbenchers, that what, whatever it is, is being proposed is socialism. Everything would be couched in euphemism. The media wing of the Democrat party would be glad to aid and abet this kind of politics.

AntonK said...

"If we're all supposed to see that Obama is a socialist, and then he wins by a landslide..."

No Ann, it means that with a PR machine of galactic proportions covering for him, most don't see that Obama is a socialist. You know that, you're just protecting your own decision to support him.

laura said...

I'm no political scientist, but don't we already have a degree of socialism in our culture - the armed forces, the post office, police departments, land grant universities, and so on? Little of it is perfect, but aren't we already there?

Simon said...

Chet said...
"Nobody's thinking checks and balances. What it will mean to have 100% Democrat rule, and what they can do with that."

But that's precisely Althouse's point. The electorate isn't stupid -- well, that's not true, but at least isn't stupid enough to not realize that they're instituting single party rule, if indeed they do. What Althouse is saying, I think, is that if they do so, shouldn't we assume that this is an expression of what they want - and a mandate?

(The answer's no, of course, but that's another story.)

Freeman Hunt said...

There is no such thing as a mandate for socialism. Ever. Socialism is tyranny. It is an affront to liberty and individual rights wherever it is found. If the majority of people vote it in, then that is the tyranny of the majority, and the minority has an obligation to fight against it.

ricpic said...

The first hundred days will see the criminalization of all opposition. Once that's in place it's full steam ahead to the worker's paradise.

PJ said...

A McCain/Palin win is a mandate for split power in government.

A mandate I would support in either configuration.

Pogo: speaking as a boomer, I concur about boomers. And we're not done yet, by a long shot. Just wait 'til we're all on Medicare.

Simon said...

Ann Althouse said...
"I would like to characterize him as a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate, so that if he wins, we can say that's what he got elected to be."

What are your failure criteria for this? That is, what are the (at this point, admittedly rough) outlines of what it would take to demonstrate that his conduct in office has falsified this impression? For example, assuming that you haven't changed your mind on not voting for Obama if you thought he would investigate and prosecute the administration, one must infer your conclusion that he won't do so; is the claim of his being a "thoughtful, pragmatic moderate" defeated if he does so?

The thing that strikes me as jarring, Ann, is that either you're completely wrong about Obama, or his most fervent supporters and followers are completely wrong about him. You and they see completely different and frankly incompatible versions of Barack Obama, but in office, he can't and won't be a blank screen. He will disappoint you or he will disappoint them. Who do you think is more likely to get the short end of that?

There aren't many things - there are very few things - about which I think you're wrong. This is one of them. You are a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate, and what could be better than a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate President? I understand wanting him to be those things, but if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. Is it your sense that his record reflects what you want him to be? Or does your analysis rely (like Buckley's) on the assumption that in office, he will simply behave differently to how he has done thusfar? Reading your posts of late - concededly not in any systematic way - I must admit that it sometimes seems like the latter.

Lawgiver said...

Since September we have had approximately 13 combat related deaths in Iraq. Is the war over? Would socialists stay and help rebuild this battered country or would they pack up and go home?

SGT Ted said...

WHat is funny is the libs bitching about the entitlement program expansions that were favored by their Democrat party Heros like Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid. Please. You guys really dont care about massive deficit spending and you never have, unless it was military spending. Why do you think McCain was doing so badly with his own party until he selected an actual conservative? Did you sleep thru the 2004 election where MANY conservatives were only voting for Bush because Kerry was much worse?

Any arguement from the left whining about Big Spending Bush is opportunistic horseshit on stilts.

Greg Toombs said...

Consider that Obama has built long term relationships with and taken instruction or direction from Bill Ayers, Rev Wright and his church of Black Liberation Theory (google it, if necessary) and Rashid Khalidi. All worship Marxism.

Given the the short time Obama’s held any public positions and the paucity of his public record (and most liberal Senate record), what are we to think when we look deeper in search of his values and principles, as we search for clues to his future policies?

I would like to characterize him as a thoughtful, pragmatic moderate

Ann, I respectfully ask you, what is it about Obama's record that made you reach that extraordinary conclusion? His deep and resonant voice? His bland statements that can be (and are) taken to mean anything the listener hopes they mean?

peter hoh said...

Fine, Sarge, I'll only complain about big spending Bush while wearing my conservative hat.

Simon, I very much suspect that Obama will continue to enjoy the support of most of his liberal backers while he takes a more centrist approach to governing. I expect that he will be able to frame issues in such a way that they accept the direction he takes.

I expect Obama to sign a few things that will make the liberals happy and the social conservatives upset, but after that, look for him to head to the center, especially on economic issues and the war on terror.

Signs to look for: keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, appointing three or four Republicans to cabinet posts -- maybe reaching back to people who served in the GHWB administration.

MadisonMan said...

A mandate I would support in either configuration.

So would I, up to a point. If McCain were guaranteed to live 4 years, I'd vote for him without a qualm. But there are no guarantees.

It became far harder for me to vote for McCain when he chose Palin.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There is no such thing as a mandate for socialism.

Oh I wouldn't say that. Obama is leading in the polls right now and is unashamedly stating he will raise taxes on the 'rich' and re-distribute it back to the rest of us and a good chunk of the electorate thinks that is just grand because they aren't 'rich'.

Unlike Simon, I do think that a good chunk of the electorate is stupid and in fact would heartily support a Constitutional amendment that requires you to be a taxpayer to be able to vote. When a large chunk of the electorate has zero investment in the country in the form of having to pay income taxes, you shouldn't be able to dictate to me how my money should be distributed.

AlphaLiberal said...

It's simply ridiculous to call tax cuts socialism. Really, it's ignorant.

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. Beyond that, there are endless debates over what is really socialism.

I defy anyone to find a quote from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky or any other socialist leader calling for tax cuts.

The stupid. It burns!

peter hoh said...

Liberals didn't abandon Clinton when he signed welfare reform.

Another sign to look for in the first month or so of an Obama administration: look for him to tell people that government can't do everything. He's already doing it in his education speech.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It became far harder for me to vote for McCain when he chose Palin.

Seriously MM, when Biden can hardly make a statement without sticking his foot in his mouth how does that reassure you?

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's simply ridiculous to call tax cuts socialism. Really, it's ignorant.

Well he's paying for those tax cuts for some people by taking more money from other people. Or did you miss that part?

peter hoh said...

Hoosier: how about if you add to your amendment that anyone receiving farm subsidies is not allowed to vote, either?

Sure, they may pay some taxes (your test) but they receive far more from the government than they pay in, making them effective non-taxpayers.

peter hoh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B said...

I guess I'm curious as to how we're defining the word "mandate".

Does it mean a 100 electoral vote win, or 10% in the popular vote? Obama could, in several scenarios, squeak out some states with a 1% win and still stomp McCain in the electoral count.

The definition of mandate, as it relates to elections seems to imply a large margin of victory. In this case we could see a large margin in the electoral college despite a plurality in the popular vote. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't sound like a mandate for much of anything.

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, do you think that families of soldiers should get to vote, even if they don't pay federal income taxes?

And do Social Security taxes count?

peter hoh said...

b, GWB claimed a mandate after the 2004 election. Remember he was going to use it to reform social security?

AlphaLiberal said...

Well he's paying for those tax cuts for some people by taking more money from other people. Or did you miss that part?

A. That's. not. socialism. Where is the public ownership of the means of production? (BEsides in Bush's Wall St bailout plan, I mean).

B. A big part of the Republican outrage is because Obama won't renew George Bush's tax cuts. Those big tax cuts for the wealthy, for investment income.

Republicans are actually saying that our national policy should be to tax wages from work far higher than income from investments?

But they can't come out and say that so they have to make up this sub-juvenile "socialist!" line.

AlphaLiberal said...

Liberals didn't abandon Clinton when he signed welfare reform.

Actually, we were pretty pissed off at him for caving into the right wing and were giving him a hard time.

But then the whole Starr Chamber proceedings got revved up and we got defensive for a President the right wing tried to drive from elected office.

Freeman Hunt said...

AlphaLib, stop trying to use the most narrow definition of socialism possible as if you have no idea what others are talking about. When people are talking socialism here, they're talking European-style socialism a la Sweden.

And your comment about Bush's tax cuts being only for the rich is laughable. During Bush's term, the rich have come to pay a larger percentage of tax revenues, not smaller.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

peter hoh said...

Alpha, I understand that some liberals were pissed about welfare reform and other things Clinton did. Had they abandoned him, however, they would not have defended him when Starr, et al, got going.

peter hoh said...

Freeman, look at the income rise among the top tier of earners. Of course they were going to pay a larger share of all income taxes; their income was a larger share of all income.

Pogo said...

Alphaliberal is a fine example of what happens when softheaded socialism is taught to young people, without any doses of hard reality.

The laws of economics are like gravity, you cannot repeal them, or remake them as you see fit.

All socialism ever accomplishes is a levelling of the majority to a lower economic status from which they have no hope of escaping, and an elevation of an elite to a permanent power. It then collapses, because it is based on impossible economic precepts, but because it eradicated or disabled any alternatives able to reorganize society, it poisons any possible recovery from its sickness. The gift that keeps on giving.

People think they're voting for Clinton or some moderate interim peacetime President.

But they're going to get a massive dose of socialism, good and hard. And its implementation cannot be undone, except by revolution, and that in a coming generation or two, following an horrific failure.

Again, my thanks to boomers for screwing us up again, for giving the economy AIDS. Your story will be told with horror by some future tribe, about how the Selfish Generation killed the greatest country that ever existed.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, do you think that families of soldiers should get to vote, even if they don't pay federal income taxes?

Good question. My point is that I think you need to have a stake in the country in order to have a voice in it. I don't think some 25 year old still living with mom and dad should be able to decide the course of the country. Call that elitist I don't care. When the electorate realizes that they can vote themselves part of the Federal treasury we no longer have much of a country.

And do Social Security taxes count?

SSN and Medicare aren't taxes or that's what I keep being told.

peter hoh said...

Pogo, if Obama starts to govern as a socialist, expect to see me protesting. But failing to extend the Bush tax cuts does not count as socialism. Progressive taxation in and of itself does not count as socialism, unless you want to argue that Eisenhower was a socialist.

MadisonMan said...

Seriously MM, when Biden can hardly make a statement without sticking his foot in his mouth how does that reassure you?

My unease with Palin has more to do with policy. And seasoning and experience, too.

Freeman Hunt said...

Freeman, look at the income rise among the top tier of earners. Of course they were going to pay a larger share of all income taxes; their income was a larger share of all income.

Yes, which is good. Thank goodness for tax cuts.

Floridan said...

"If Obama wins by 10 million votes, would they shut up and maybe judge him by his performance in office?"

Of course not.

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, heard you regarding the 25 y.o. slacker. Now how about the farmer collecting subsidies? Should he be allowed to decide the course of the nation?

Pogo said...

"if Obama starts to govern as a socialist, expect to see me protesting"

Fat lot of good that will do.

You can't unscrew the pooch.

garage mahal said...

"If Obama wins by 10 million votes, would they shut up and maybe judge him by his performance in office?"

No.

peter hoh said...

Freeman, do you think that the $450,000,000 earned by the head of Lehman Bros. is a good thing, and can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts?

peter hoh said...

Pogo, any more than the Bush voters can unscrew the pooch.

My fave is listening to right wing radio hosts claiming that Bush is not and never was a real conservative. Fat lot of good that does now.

peter hoh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

Peter, calling attention to a single individual when we're talking percentages of entire populations is irrelevant. What has that guy got to do with what I'm talking about?

integrity said...

peter hoh said...
b, GWB claimed a mandate after the 2004 election. Remember he was going to use it to reform social security?




If Obama should win and win by bigger margins than Bush he should immediately claim a mandate as well, especially since Bush never really had a mandate. And use it wisely.

Calling Obama a socialist is bullshit. As the fools funnel all their wealth to wealthy people. What a joke.

A little forewarning, no matter who gets in we are headed for a deep, deep recession. It will be very interesting in 3-6 months to see how the attitudes of the right-wingers that post here have changed, provided they don't kill themselves first. Unemployment will be at 8%-10%, and nobody will be spending money. As Instadirtbag might say, heh indeed.

I really wonder how all the arrogant right-wingers are going to deal with the disaster that their experiment in "self-regulation"(Ha!) hath wrought. The fallout will be much more interesting than this election, that's for sure.

The 4 establishment people I most want to see kill themselves:

1. Larry Kudlow(CNBC)

2. Charlie Gasparino(CNBC)

3. Maria Bartiromo(CNBC)

4. Joe Kernen(CNBC)

There are a few more CNBCers that I hope kill themselves, but those 4 are a good start.

And Seven Machos, or seven fags as I like to call him.

Darcy said...

Fat lot of good that will do.

You can't unscrew the pooch.


This should be funny, and I did attempt to laugh at it...until I realized it isn't really funny, is it?

Thanks for that "near laugh", anyway! :)

peter hoh said...

Freeman, because that represents part of what's going on at the very tip of the top tier. That kind of bloated executive compensation is not good for the economy, either. I wonder what Milton Friedman would have said about it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well he's paying for those tax cuts for some people by taking more money from other people. Or did you miss that part?

A. That's. not. socialism.


Huh? You mean taking more out of my pocket and giving it to someone else isn't a form of socialism?

A big part of the Republican outrage is because Obama won't renew George Bush's tax cuts. Those big tax cuts for the wealthy, for investment income.

So you're cool with taking more money from people who are smart investors and handing it out to people who aren't?

Allow me to share with you my personal view. I realzie there are people out ther who are down and out poor because of no fault of thier own. Then there are those who are poor because they made dumb ass choices in life; drop out of school, got knocked up, committed a felony, thought making $10 and hour out of high school was just dandy work, etc or simply spent more than they earned and became bankrupt.

I'm all for helping someone out. I am not for creating generations of couch potatoes who think they're owed something because life's been a bitch to them. Why should I be taxed to send some inner city kid to college when I had to fucking work my way through? You said later in this thread you were pissed about welfare reform? Why? Is is so goddam bad to expect people to fucking work rather than collect a goddam check I had to fund with my work?

That's the difference between you and me. I want to see people empowered and made independent. You want them dependent because if someone can fend for themselves, they don't need you anymore.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

Freeman, because that represents part of what's going on at the very tip of the top tier.

That's absurd. When we talk about the top 1%, we're talking about over one million people. Sure, that's part, an extraordinarily small part that's not even relevant to the discussion. You could find cases of people not really earning their way all across the income spectrum.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Without reading any of the other comments:

It means that people are stupid and greedy.

It also means that they deserve every bit of misery that this man will bring to our country.

Never elect an ideologue

Pogo said...

"...radio hosts claiming that Bush is not and never was a real conservative. Fat lot of good that does now."

Usually when people make an error, they try to correct it. But your answer to that realization is to go further left?

What a strange world you live in. Are you staying here long?

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, where does the money come from, to pay for the bailout and the war and Medicare, Part D?

Freeman, I wish I could find the table that amba posted about income by percentile, but the rise at the top over the last dozen years far outpaces the rest of the groups. Were taxes to remain at the same level, those at the top would be paying a larger share of all taxes by this fact alone.

Hey, I'd go for a flat tax, along with the elimination of farm subsidies and a whole host of entitlement reforms, but I'm not holding my breath.

And now I must get to work.

MadisonMan said...

When we talk about the top 1%, we're talking about over one million people.

It amazes me that there are 138M taxpayers in the USA. I guess that's 'cause I remember when the population clock ticked past 200M.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, heard you regarding the 25 y.o. slacker. Now how about the farmer collecting subsidies? Should he be allowed to decide the course of the nation?

Is he paying taxes? Is he making a contribution to the GNP? How about just cut the subsidy.

AlphaLiberal said...

Freeman:

AlphaLib, stop trying to use the most narrow definition of socialism possible as if you have no idea what others are talking about. When people are talking socialism here, they're talking European-style socialism a la Sweden.

Even so, you're wrong. What makes them "socialist" (in reality, "social democracies") is having strong social welfare programs.

The criticism of Obama supposedly being "socialist" is that his tax plans are socialist. That's what John McCain has repeatedly said. (He's on my TV right now talking about this).

Instead of this brain dead "socialism" hot-button label debate, answer this question:

Do you think wages from work should be taxed higher than wages on investment income?

That's where the difference of opinion lies. I think wages should be taxed less. What do you think?

Roost on the Moon said...

Freeman says:

AlphaLib, stop trying to use the most narrow definition of socialism possible as if you have no idea what others are talking about. When people are talking socialism here, they're talking European-style socialism a la Sweden.

It's the people who use "socialism" as a conversation-ender who are being obtuse.

Obviously you aren't talking about European-style socialism when you use soaring rhetoric like: "all socialism is tyranny". Or, if you are, you're making both words meaningless.

peter hoh said...

Hoosier, pigs will fly before farm subsidies are cut. Both sides of the aisle feed at that trough.

ricpic said...

Socialism is the final triumph of vindictive resentment.

peter hoh said...

If socialism is (but not limited to) the state controlling the means of production, what to make of the state controlling the means of distribution?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier, where does the money come from, to pay for the bailout and the war and Medicare, Part D?

Well that's an excellent question. See I have to live on a budget but it seems that Government doesn't. They just borrow and borrow and then raise taxes because a big chunk of the electorate keeps asking 'Where's My Stuff?' If Obama wants to raise taxes for the sole purpose of balancing the budget and cutting the debt, sign me up. But if it's simply to tale more from me and hand over to Joe the Unemployed Plumber, screw that. Get the budget balanced and get the debt under control. Then you can do warm and fuzzy stuff like universal day care, universal health care, universal abortions, or universal college tuition.

Hey I got an idea, how about we cut some programs? See in my house when money gets tight, we cut out stuff. It's painful but necessary.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Do you think wages from work should be taxed higher than wages on investment income?

That's where the difference of opinion lies. I think wages should be taxed less. What do you think?


Neither. See when I retire I plan on living off my investment income so your plan fucks me in my old age too.

Thank you.

Freder Frederson said...

When people are talking socialism here, they're talking European-style socialism a la Sweden.

Oh yeah, Sweden is a hellhole.

Do you honestly believe that democratic socialism as practiced in Sweden (or Norway) is "is an affront to liberty and individual rights wherever it is found. If the majority of people vote it in, then that is the tyranny of the majority, and the minority has an obligation to fight against it."

If so, why don't you join the Sweden Liberation Front?

You are a twit.

Your kind of thinking leads to plotting mass murder and assassination fantasies like those two stupid rednecks were arrested for yesterday.

garage mahal said...

Never elect an ideologue

Hahahaha. That's McCain's problem. To separate himself from Bush he would have to renounce all the ideologues like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Palin to do so. Delicious conundrum if I don't say so myself -- ideally I would love to hear it and see him lose too. I'll take one of the two though.

Freder Frederson said...

Neither. See when I retire I plan on living off my investment income so your plan fucks me in my old age too.

Proceeds from 401(K)s and IRAs withdrawn during retirement are already taxed as ordinary income(not capital gains), moron.

Freeman Hunt said...

Freeman, I wish I could find the table that amba posted about income by percentile, but the rise at the top over the last dozen years far outpaces the rest of the groups. Were taxes to remain at the same level, those at the top would be paying a larger share of all taxes by this fact alone.

Yes, and that doesn't happen in a vacuum. The rich can invest more in businesses when they can keep more of their money. That allows them to make more money as well as creating jobs and providing for capital investment. In turn, the overall economy is improved and tax revenues are increased. I've got no problem with that. In fact, it looks like a win-win.

Hey, I'd go for a flat tax, along with the elimination of farm subsidies and a whole host of entitlement reforms ...

Here, we can agree entirely. :)

OT: The conflicting edits error is the bane of my commenting. I've had to re-type more comments than I care to count.

Freeman Hunt said...

Do you think wages from work should be taxed higher than wages on investment income?

Absolutely. When you invest, your money is at risk. You can lose money you already have. Not so when you're collecting wages.

AlphaLiberal said...

Hoosier dude:

A. That's. not. socialism.

Huh? You mean taking more out of my pocket and giving it to someone else isn't a form of socialism?


Yes. That's what I mean. Thanks for paying attention.

And this has been going on under Bush for 8 years. Tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by everyone else, now or when we pay off the monstrous debt from this era.

Property taxes up to offset federal cutbacks. Fees up in state and local governments.

So you're cool with taking more money from people who are smart investors and handing it out to people who aren't?

This is just a dishonest argument. I said that tax rates on wages from work should be lower than taxes on investment income. Then you go on and on about the "down and out."

I'm talking about wages from work. Not handouts. People keeping more of their paychecks.

If you have to falsely restate my point, maybe you don't otherwise have an argument.

Simon said...

peter hoh said...
"I expect Obama to sign a few things that will make the liberals happy and the social conservatives upset, but after that, look for him to head to the center, especially on economic issues and the war on terror."

And why would he do that, when all the appearences are that he has managed to not lose an election (albeit an election that a year ago, any generic Democrat was predicted to win, and by a thinner margin) while staying perched on the left? Obama is in a lucky position, because he's going to ride an election that's really the electorate taking out their frustrations with Bush on McCain. All he has to do is avoid doing anything that would diminish him as a vehicle for doing so.


"Signs to look for: keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, appointing three or four Republicans to cabinet posts -- maybe reaching back to people who served in the GHWB administration."

Depending on how broadly you define "Republicans," this isn't a satisfying criterion. You would be able to claim vindication if he appoints, say, Colin Powell and Chuck Hagel, even though they have endorsed Obama.


MadisonMan said...
"So would I, up to a point. If McCain were guaranteed to live 4 years, I'd vote for him without a qualm. But there are no guarantees. It became far harder for me to vote for McCain when he chose Palin."

I just find this position incomprehensible. Really, what does this even mean?

Freder Frederson said...

The rich can invest more in businesses when they can keep more of their money. That allows them to make more money as well as creating jobs and providing for capital investment.

Or they can piss it away on PONZI schemes like MBSs and CDS's creating a huge bubble in real estate that bursts necessitating a huge government bailout. Just because rich people have lots of money, it doesn't mean that they are going to invest it wisely or that the capital investment (say in McMansions in the the exurbs and condos in Miamis) is actually something that creates lasting wealth.

But of course by the time the not so wealthy are left holding the bag, the wealthy have screwed us all.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Proceeds from 401(K)s and IRAs withdrawn during retirement are already taxed as ordinary income(not capital gains), moron.

You're assuming that's where my income will be coming from. People who assume makes asses of themselves but you're still a fucking dick Freder.

MadisonMan said...

OT: The conflicting edits error is the bane of my commenting. I've had to re-type more comments than I care to count.

Usually, when I hit refresh, the comment goes through. (I'm on firefox).

AlphaLiberal said...

Freeman, thanks for answering the question straight up.

So you are in favor of a "redistributionist" tax scheme where more of the tax burden falls on people earning their income from work to give lower taxes to those earning income from investments.

My view is that working has risks, as well, workers make the investors entirely possible and working people have been getting the shaft in many ways.

Freder Frederson said...

Absolutely. When you invest, your money is at risk. You can lose money you already have.

And of course capital losses are deductible on your income tax.

AlphaLiberal said...

Usually, when I hit refresh, the comment goes through. (I'm on firefox).

Helps to use the Preview function, too.

peter hoh said...

Freeman, coming on the heels of the bailout, well, the investments-as-risk argument seems weak.

MadisonMan said...

Simon, as I have said elsewhere, I find Palin incomprehensible on many things. Her anti-Science comments are very off-putting to me, as well as those Proud American comments. Very divisive. Her record as mayor is to borrow and let others pay for things. Ugh. Although she is now visiting much of the country as a candidate, my impression is that she does not get how many of the people she would have to govern live.

Given time, I think she'll be an excellent candidate. As you yourself have noted in the past, however parenthetically, she's inexperienced.

Hoosier Daddy said...


Huh? You mean taking more out of my pocket and giving it to someone else isn't a form of socialism?

Yes. That's what I mean. Thanks for paying attention.


Sorry I wasn't aware you were re-defining the term.

And this has been going on under Bush for 8 years. Tax cuts for the wealthy paid for by everyone else, now or when we pay off the monstrous debt from this era.

I hate to tell you but we had a monstrous debt before Bush got in, it's just more monstrous.

This is just a dishonest argument. I said that tax rates on wages from work should be lower than taxes on investment income. Then you go on and on about the "down and out."

No its not. What you're saying is that I should have to pay higher taxes for wisely investing rather than pissing away my paycheck on lotto tickets.

I'm talking about wages from work. Not handouts. People keeping more of their paychecks.

If you have to falsely restate my point, maybe you don't otherwise have an argument.


No I'm addressing Obama's statement about re-distributing the wealth. That is a form of socialism. If he's going to raise taxes to pay for defense, infrastructure or reducing the debt fine.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And of course capital losses are deductible on your income tax.

For a whopping $3000 limit.

AlphaLiberal said...


No its not. What you're saying is that I should have to pay higher taxes for wisely investing rather than pissing away my paycheck on lotto tickets.


The hell I did.

I said tax rates on work should be less (or, I'll add, at least equal to), tax rates on investment income.

It's all up there in black and white. You're putting words in my mouth, which is pretty dishonest.

Or, if I were to play you're game, you're saying people who earn a living through wages are a bunch of bums and slackers. Working people are a bunch of bums, in your book.

Actually, you do seem to be saying that.

peter hoh said...

Here's Hitch on the "risk" enjoyed by those leading investment banks:

What they put at risk, though, was other people’s money and other people’s property. How very agreeable it must be to sit at a table in a casino where nobody seems to lose, and to play with a big stack of chips furnished to you by other people, and to have the further assurance that, if anything should ever chance to go wrong, you yourself are guaranteed by the tax dollars of those whose money you are throwing about in the first place!

MadisonMan said...

For a whopping $3000 limit.

Not very realistic these days.

AlphaLiberal said...

And of course capital losses are deductible on your income tax.

For a whopping $3000 limit.


Cry me a fricken river.

So, under Republican policies, the leisure class can take a stroll on easy street while working families carry the burden to pick up their slack.

Warren buffet has denounced the tax system where he, one of the richest men in the world, pays a lower tax rate than his secretary does. (Wait, don't tell me: social justice is a socialist concept)

But that's Republican policy. And it's an anti-family policy because those dollars come from budgets for necessities while taxing the likes of Warren Buffet more would just mean slightly smaller trust funds and luxury budgets.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I said tax rates on work should be less (or, I'll add, at least equal to), tax rates on investment income.

It's all up there in black and white. You're putting words in my mouth, which is pretty dishonest.


This is what you said:

Do you think wages from work should be taxed higher than wages on investment income?

That's where the difference of opinion lies. I think wages should be taxed less. What do you think?


So you're saying wages should be taxed less than investment income. Ok. Then someone who is retired and living off investment income is going to taxed at a higher rate. Let me know if I missed something.

See I would like to see lesser taxes and government living within its means. If I can look forward to being taxed at a higher rate for making sound investments why should I bother?

It's called incentive.

Freeman Hunt said...

Freeman, coming on the heels of the bailout, well, the investments-as-risk argument seems weak.

I was against the bailout. The bailout was just more socialism.

Freeman Hunt said...

I'm pressed for time, so I can't address each comment of this type individually, but yes, I do think that European-style socialism is tyranny.

Just think if some of the Europeans got what they claim to want, a weaker United States? Then they'd have to fund their own national defense systems. Yikes! They could never do it.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Cry me a fricken river.

So, under Republican policies, the leisure class can take a stroll on easy street while working families carry the burden to pick up their slack.


Livin up to that sterotype there Alpha. See you seem to think everyone who suffers a loss in a capital investment is the leisure class. No way anyone who actually worked hard and invested would be in that category. No sirree.

AlphaLiberal said...

Then someone who is retired and living off investment income is going to taxed at a higher rate.

Actually, no. Not under the Obama plan. Not at all.

And you're engaging in a typical distraction, using the poorest example as a poster child to paper over the great majority of cases where the low tax rates on investment income are from wealthy people.

Freeman Hunt said...

So, under Republican policies, the leisure class can take a stroll on easy street while working families carry the burden to pick up their slack.

The leisure class? You think that most investors are like Warren Buffet? The reason that Buffet and his ilk think the way the do is because they are so far removed from the lives of regular people. They've already made their money. They have so much that it makes no difference to them if the government redistributes huge portions of it. They make up less than a tiny sliver of the population.

AlphaLiberal said...

And, really, the idea that people engaging in the capitalist system are supposed to get tax breaks because the capitalist system is risky is crazy.

By the right wing logic, that's socialism for the rich.

Look, you invest your money knowing full well you are taking risks. If you don't understand that, you don't understand capitalism.

That is a senseless argument for lower tax rates on investment wealth.

And, you want risky, try keeping a job or a pension or health care in this nation where greed has run amuck and all those social contracts have long been shredded.

Freeman Hunt said...

the great majority of cases where the low tax rates on investment income are from wealthy people.

Most investors are not wealthy people.

Freder Frederson said...

Ok. Then someone who is retired and living off investment income is going to taxed at a higher rate. Let me know if I missed something.

You are either incredibly ignorant or patently dishonest since the retirement income of most people is taxed as ordinary or already receives some special treatment.

Freeman Hunt said...

Just because rich people have lots of money, it doesn't mean that they are going to invest it wisely or that the capital investment (say in McMansions in the the exurbs and condos in Miamis) is actually something that creates lasting wealth.

And just because poor people get more money doesn't mean that they aren't going to piss it away either. If the rich don't invest their money wisely, they won't be rich for long. Meanwhile, the people who do invest wisely will become rich. There is great incentive to invest wisely.

As for the "necessity" of the bailout, I was entirely against that.

Freder Frederson said...

Most investors are not wealthy people.

However, most investors who derive most of their income from investment income and those whose investment income will eventually be taxed as capital gains are indeed wealthy people.

And again why should a doctor who makes $250,000 a year have to pay more in taxes than some trust fund brat who has the same income merely living off his family's fortune?

AlphaLiberal said...

Freeman, I made that argument to make a point: working people work hard and their work is very often devalued by conservatives (we have Hoosier Daddy calling them slackers and bums).

Meanwhile there's this assumption that someone who is making gobs of money must have been working hard.

Not true at all. Sure, they "worked" in their offices and did research. But the value of their investments was not created by them alone. Their wealth was created by the people working in the companies they invest in, the government investments in infrastructure (internet being a prime example for dot com kings) and so on.

Finally, before I go do doors for Obama, I will say that the capitalist system redistributes wealth, itself, upward. And, left unchecked, that's not a healthy outcome for a society. We've learned that lesson many times in history. (some of us have, anyway)

Freeman Hunt said...

And, really, the idea that people engaging in the capitalist system are supposed to get tax breaks because the capitalist system is risky is crazy.

Alpha, it's all part of the capitalist system, both investment and income from wages. In one case, you're risking your own money in hopes of a return which you may or may not get, in another, you're collecting wages from businesses that exist because others have risked their money by investing in them.

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
"Simon, as I have said elsewhere, I find Palin incomprehensible on many things. Her anti-Science comments are very off-putting to me, as well as those Proud American comments. Very divisive."

I don't think she's anti-science. I've seen the stuff that's trotted out in support of that argument, and there's just nothing to it. It's more of the "Republican war on science" hooey that the left has been pushing for a few years - new target, same schtick. As to divisive remarks - after the rhetoric of the left over the last eight years, you want to say that Palin is divisive?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the rhetoric about how this lefty politician is divisive and that righty politician is divisive. It rings hollow. You know what's really divisive? People with different opinions. When you have a basically democratic system in which people really and fundamentally disagree with one another about serious and fundamental issues such as where we came from, where we're going and what we are, wouldn't there be something wrong if the politicians selected did not reflect that divide?

AlphaLiberal said...

Most investors are not wealthy people.

I was referring to the money invested and not taxed. Most working people would do far better if wages were taxed at rates equal to, or less than, investment income.

Using retirees as examples of people affected by investment income is misleading. Widow dressing,.

Freeman Hunt said...

And again why should a doctor who makes $250,000 a year have to pay more in taxes than some trust fund brat who has the same income merely living off his family's fortune?

So in the interest of punishing the "trust fund brat," who you disdain, you will punish everyone who creates businesses and thus jobs and thus the entire economy?

peter hoh said...

Alpha, your critique of capitalism is unfair. We do not have a capitalist system. We have socialism for the well-connected.

Freeman Hunt said...

Most working people would do far better if wages were taxed at rates equal to, or less than, investment income.

Yes, but that would make no sense. It would be ridiculous to provide greater incentive for wage-collecting than for risking money one already has. No one can even collect wages if other people aren't already risking assets.

AlphaLiberal said...

Alpha, it's all part of the capitalist system, both investment and income from wages.

You have ducked my point and this is really not responsive. Saying investing carries risk is not sufficient reason for a tax break or for taxing investment income less than wage income.

I get it, you think investors are some type of heroes. I think they're just doing their jobs and don't deserve massive tax breaks for doing it.

Based on your views, I'd guess you also see high wages as a problem.

AlphaLiberal said...

There's the old saw:
"Republicans see higher wages as a problem. Democrats see higher wages as a solution."

Republicans: in favor of low wages AND higher taxes on wages.

That's a debate they don't want to have.

Pogo said...

There's the old saw:
"Republicans see higher wages as a problem. Democrats see higher wages as a solution."


Economic ignorance nonpareil.

Freeman Hunt said...

You have ducked my point and this is really not responsive. Saying investing carries risk is not sufficient reason for a tax break or for taxing investment income less than wage income.

I didn't duck your point. Your point made no sense. Your point was based on wages somehow being apart from the rest of the economy. And yes, the fact that investment carries risk is sufficient reason for taxing investment income at a lower rate. It's only logical.

I get it, you think investors are some type of heroes. I think they're just doing their jobs and don't deserve massive tax breaks for doing it.

Just doing their jobs? It's no one's "job" to risk his own money on an idea. That's what makes the economy go. Workers do not drive the economy, investment does.

Based on your views, I'd guess you also see high wages as a problem.

Why? No, I don't see high wages as a problem. Wages should be as high or low as the market values them.

hdhouse said...

Freeman Hunt said...
"So in the interest of punishing the "trust fund brat," who you disdain, you will punish everyone who creates businesses and thus jobs and thus the entire economy?"

and your evidence that "trickle down" economics works can be found where? That if you want people to buy more refrigerators you give more people the ability to buy them....or doesn't that compute.

that when the republicans reallocated wealth upward to the few you didn't scream socialism then but when you go back past the rope-a-dope tax policies (that also seem to conveniently expire on someone else's watch) to the progressive tax systems that flourished the economy,you stick your head up your collective asses.

ya'betcha.

hdhouse said...

Ann Althouse said...
I said "if." The question is about the problem of calling Obama a socialist. If he wins big, how do we interpret the win."

That more people trust him with their futures than they trust McCain. How else can you interpret it. It isn't a referendum on anything other than "yea, I like and trust that guy more than that other guy".

There are no forward looking statements other than "he did that or behaved that way in the past so maybe just maybe he will do thus-and-such in the future".

Hoosier Daddy said...

You are either incredibly ignorant or patently dishonest since the retirement income of most people is taxed as ordinary or already receives some special treatment.

Define most people. Not everyone has a 401K not everyone has a pension provided to them. I said investment income. Learn to fucking read you patently ignorant asshole.

Hoosier Daddy said...

That if you want people to buy more refrigerators you give more people the ability to buy them....or doesn't that compute.

Oh yes hdhouse. Because we all know if we give other people's money to the disadvantaged they'll go buy refidgerators rather than lotto tickets and liquor. Because we all know that only wealthy people piss money away and the down and out are frugal.

that when the republicans reallocated wealth upward to the few you didn't scream socialism

I guess because some of us don't view allowing people to keep thier own money as reallocation of wealth. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. You see my money as really the Government's who is being kind enough to let me keep some.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»