I suppose you have to look at this from the US pov where both major parties are further right than ours.

Comrade Obama?
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

10/31/2008
 
If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen.

Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

"Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born?

In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote:

"There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

pt 2...

I suppose you have to look at this from the US pov where both major parties are further right than ours.

Comrade Obama?
by  Patrick J. Buchanan

10/31/2008
 
If Barack Obama is not a socialist, he does the best imitation of one I've ever seen.

Under his tax plan, the top 5 percent of wage-earners have their income tax rates raised from 35 percent to 40 percent, while the bottom 40 percent of all wage-earners, who pay no income tax, are sent federal checks.

If this is not the socialist redistribution of wealth, what is it?

A steeply graduated income tax has always been the preferred weapon of the left for bringing about socialist equality. Indeed, in the "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, Karl Marx was himself among the first to call for "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

The Obama tax plan is pure Robin Hood class warfare: Use the tax power of the state to rob the successful and reward the faithful. Only in Sherwood Forest it was assumed the Sheriff of Nottingham and his crowd had garnered their wealth by other than honest labor.

"Spread the wealth," Barack admonished Joe the Plumber.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," said old Karl in 1875. When Barbara West of WFTV in Orlando, Fla., put the Marx quote to Biden, however, Joe recoiled in spluttering disbelief.

West: "You may recognize this famous quote: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' That's from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

Biden: "Are you joking? Is this a joke?"

Biden's better defense, however, might have be the "Tu quoque!" retort: "You, too!" -- the time-honored counter-charge of hypocrisy.

Indeed, how do Republicans who call Obama a socialist explain their support for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and the Earned Income Tax Credit? What are these if not government-mandated transfers of wealth to the middle and working class, and the indigent and working poor?

Since August, the Bush-Paulson team has seized our biggest S&L, Washington Mutual, and largest insurance company, AIG. It has nationalized Fannie and Freddie, pumped scores of billions into our banks, bailed out GM, Ford and Chrysler, and paid the $29 billion dowry for Bear Stearns to enter its shotgun marriage with JPMorgan Chase.

And with federal, state and local taxes taking a third of gross domestic product, and government regulating businesses with wage-and-hour laws, civil rights laws, environmental laws, and occupational health and safety laws, what are we living under, if not a mixed socialist-capitalist system?

Norman Thomas is said to have quit running for president on the Socialist ticket after six campaigns because the Democratic Party had stolen all his ideas and written them into its platforms.

Did Ike repeal the New Deal? Did Richard Nixon roll back the Great Society? Nope. He funded the Great Society. Did Ronald Reagan cut federal spending? Nope, defense spending soared. Bill Clinton slashed defense, but George Bush II set social spending records with No Child Left Behind and prescription drug benefits for the elderly under Medicare. Surpluses vanished, deficits returned, the national debt almost doubled.

Is the old republic then dead and gone, in the irretrievable past? Are we engaged in an argument settled before we were born?

In his 1938 essay "The Revolution Was," Garet Garrett wrote:

"There are those who think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of the Depression, singing songs to freedom."

Nevertheless, there is a difference not just of degree but of kind between unemployment compensation for jobless workers, welfare for destitute families, and confiscating the income of taxpayers who earned it -- to hand out to chronic tax consumers who did not.

This last is the socialism Winston Churchill called "the philosophy of envy and gospel of greed." And it is this suggestion of socialist ideology in Obama's words that has produced the belated pause by a nation that seemed to be moving into his camp. What did Barack say in 2001?

He spoke of the inadequacy of the courts as institutions to bring about "redistributive change" in society, of the "tragedy" of the civil rights movement in losing sight of the "political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

Normal people don't talk like that. Socialists do.

The Americans still haven't realised the cold war is over.  ::) Any shift to the left is still equated with pure communism. It's absurd. That's why America is further to the right of every industrialised western democracy. They see extreme capitalism as good, especially when the poor are starving in the street.

Well maybe, just maybe... now they'll start to see sense in regulation and other safety measures an economy and society needs.

The proposed tax changes have little or nothing to do with macroeconomic management and would not prevent boom-bust cycles in the economy. That's what the reserve bank does. The banking regulations that have been proposed elsewhere are not necessarily a good idea, in that the banking crash was more a trigger than a cause.

I'm sorry  I thought I was talking about regulation etc...  you know, the things Obama said he'd do.

I hope Obama is a socialist, he'd have to better tham those fascist barrrstards who have been running the show.
What is it with fascist baaaarstards, they like to use the word socialist as a dirty word as if people are afraid of them, demorcratic socialism is GOOD, conservative fascism is BAD, as the world is finding out right now, those filthy conservitive fascists have stuffed the worlds economy.
Comrad Obama, yes please.

I doubt very much that Conservatives in the US are real Conservatives.

As for "socialist" being bandied about...  like I said it's the US.  Someone who gives to charity there would be considered a socialist.

Grendel wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 10:04am:

I doubt very much that Conservatives in the US are real Conservatives. As for "socialist" being bandied about...  like I said it's the US.  Someone who gives to charity there would be considered a socialist.

I'm interested in what you think they are if not "real conservatives"? maybe to them Australian conservatives are  not "real".
I agree with the charity line, but what do they think George W is, after throwing billions at the economy in the last month? Ive heard it said that is the most "socialist" action by a POUSA ever.

A real Conservative wouldn't be facist.
Nor allow uncontrolled free trade or sub-prime mortgages.
Nor any form of radicalism.

con·ser·va·tism    (kən-sûr'və-tĭz'əm)  Pronunciation Key  
n.  
The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order.
A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.
Conservatism The principles and policies of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Caution or moderation, as in behavior or outlook.

I hardly think Bush or Cheney fill the bill.

conservatism
noun
a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes  

Here's a brand I more closely identify with being LW Conservative...

Red Toryism (in Canada) or Wets (in U.K.):

classical responsibility of better off to poor is expanded to support for strong social welfare programs
emphasis on equality of opportunity
accept using the power of the state to regulate economy and promote economic interests
accept basic value of trade unionism

freediver wrote on Nov 12^th, 2008 at 5:08pm:

The Americans still haven't realised the cold war is over.  ::) Any shift to the left is still equated with pure communism. It's absurd. That's why America is further to the right of every industrialised western democracy. They see extreme capitalism as good, especially when the poor are starving in the street.

As an American myself, I can attest to this.

Obama appeared to be fairly left when he first started campaigning. Then when he won the presidential election, he's not even in office yet and he's already acting like George Bush with a tan.

I knew immideatly his leftwing retort was all a pack of lies when he was playing with the idea of going to war with or atleast intimidating Iran, bailing out companies, and downplaying socialized medicine and other big socialist issues.


Evidently in this country you only have to meet three criterias to be a socialist.

A: You need to support large taxation. Even if said taxation would help pay the national deficit.

B: You have to be prochoice.

C: You have to be against the war on terror. Possibly even the war on drugs as only those damn dirty hippies would be..


I meet two of those prequisites. (A and C) I'm sure by your labor standards that just makes me a slightly less then barbaric rightwinger, but whatever. The point is, our politicans don't really speak for the "right" in this country. Which I'm not even claiming to be, but they makeup quite a bit of the base in voters..


Most of our right-wing people are either teenagers or pedophile fifty year olds, who read Ayn Rand and suddenly think they're political scientists. Preaching laseiz-fail capitalism (I called it that on purpose) not realizing that though what we have now might not be laseiz-faire, laseiz-faire is what lead us to what we have now...


The more socially acceptable rightwingers are the sheep who are too busy texting their friends and being blinded by consumeraism and irrelevent poo to ever consider the fact that maybe our government sucks and we should do something. I can't say they're completely wrong. People got to eat. They work, they follow the law to the best of their ability. They're good people. Maybe not particular bright people. But good people..


The left in this country digs it's own grave by alienating voters. They treat everyone like poo, even eachother. I use to be a hardcore socialist, then I was so abused I said "bugger this". Just because I'm prolife.


Why the hell would I want to give healthcare to a bunch of assholes like that? Ofcourse I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Ironic use of words) I still support child healthcare, and some national measurements to improve the health and well being of Americans such as public gyms.


But frankly socialism would require me believing most people were worth helping. And I don't believe that. I believe most people suck ass.

Public gyms is an interesting one. I already have a mental image of you as an angry gym junkie with cheek muscles twitching. Anyway, public gyms would be last on my list. There are far better ways to spend the money. I don't even get the extras options on private health care - what a ripoff. It is pretty easy to keep fit without spending a fortune on gyms. But hospitals need real money.

freediver wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 10:41pm:

But hospitals need real money.

Perhaps, but then we go back to that "people I don't like getting healthcare" thing lol!

Like my ex. Damn her. Let her die of loopus. Even though even though it's never loopus...


That's why I'd promote measures where people could improve their health by choice, but not so much have their needs actually met lol!


Infact, it's why I like taxation so much. I like knowing people don't get all their money. They're probably just going to spend it on booze and porn anyway. Not that I have anything wrong with booze and porn, but they can afford to cutdown their booze/porn intake for the sake of our military/kids.

I'd probably give healthcare to our soldiers too. But even that's a bit iffy as I've met alot of asshole troops...

Yeah, socialism and cyniscm don't mix very well.

Heh, heh, heh, you are quite a character Jim, welcome to Ozpolitics.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing some more of your posts, they could shake a few monkeys from their trees.

Your marriage is an example to us all, it is an outdated system.

We should just find the person who hates us most, and give them a house. ;D

Jim Profit wrote on Dec 16^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:

Infact, it's why I like taxation so much.

Or because you obviously don't work.

Quote:

Or because you obviously don't work.

I don't work now. But I use too.

And I don't qualify for welfare either. Just figured I'd get that out of the way.

And even back then, my complaint was the same. The income tax should be done for people, but taxes in and of themself don't bother me too much. Depending on how they're used.

Helping people? Hell no.

Funding to build nukes and pay off the national deficit? bugger yeah!

Jim Profit wrote on Dec 18^th, 2008 at 8:48pm:

The income tax should be done for people, but taxes in and of themself don't bother me too much. Depending on how they're used.

The whole problem with taxes is that they aren't spent how you'd like them to be spent. Otherwise they wouldn't need to tax.

Quote:

The whole problem with taxes is that they aren't spent how you'd like them to be spent. Otherwise they wouldn't need to tax.

I'm aware of that. It's why I symptathize for people who despise taxes. It's your money, you worked for it, what makes the government think they can spend it better then you, and even if they can, should they?

Theoreticaly no. But in practice. I hate far too many people to say anything but yes. Rob all the sons a bitches lol!