"From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs"
Karl Marx (actually borrowed from Louis Blanc)
Modern-day translation: From Peter to Paul
As the final days draw down on the election, many McCain supporters are becoming more and more disheartened. The polls may not look good, but they are still confusing. I guess it all depends on which poll you accept. At any rate, many are predicting that Obama will, indeed, be our next president. If that be the case, I just hope it doesn't turn on fraudulent votes being cranked out by people like ACORN.
Fortunately, since Joe the Plumber drew a statement out of Obama that he did, indeed want to spread the wealth around (redistribute it, if you will), there has been increased discussion about what Obama's tax plans will mean to most working Americans. Obama insists that 95% of Americans will get a tax break. I don't buy that for a split-second. With all the liberal programs he envisions, he can't give 95% of the people a tax cut and make it up with the top 5%.
That also raises the question of what will happen to small businesses. Again, you can't convince me that they aren't in for tax increase as well.
But if we acknowledge that Obama is going to institute a tax policy that "spreads the wealth around", are there still enough people in this country willing to vote for him and accept the consequences? That is the million-dollar question. If the people realize that Obama is going to rob Peter to pay Paul, could that turn the election to McCain? God, one would hope so.
Yet, will common sense prevail? Just how are the demographics in this country now? Could it be that a majority of voters view themselves as would-be beneficiaries of Obama's largess? One of my favorite talk show hosts, Larry Elder (in Los Angeles), recently said that if you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will have a lot of Pauls supporting you. That statement makes perfect sense.
So, (with all due respect to the other issues) is that what this election may come down to? Are we reaching the point that the Pauls will outnumber the Peters and put a socialist (yes, I said socialist) in the White House to take care of their lives from day to day (using someone else's money, of course)?
And what do you consider yourself to be-a Peter or a Paul?
4 comments:
Here you go again, posting about a subject you know little to nothing about: socialism. No offense meant by that. You're just misinformed because you grew up during the era of McCarthyism and the Cold War. Obama is not a socialist. Even if he wanted to redistribute wealth, that is not what true socialism is. I WISH Obama were a true socialist. Then I'd actually vote for him.
Have you ever actually read any Marx or other socialist literature?
Actually, Bryan, I have been to quite a few "socialist" countries in my life (communist actually) such as
E Germany, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Yugoslavia (when they were communist) as well as Russia, Georgia, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania shortly after they threw off communism. I also wrote a book on the former Soviet Union (their languages).
One lesson I took away was that the system doesn't work.
Here's the thing though: just because those countries called themselves "socialist" didn't make them so. North Korea calls itself the DEMOCRATIC People's Republic of Korea, and I don't think any sane person would believe they are even the slightest bit democratic. Those countries you listed were simply Stalinist authoritarian regimes ruling under the guise of "socialism" (or "communism").
I also want to point out to you that ALL taxes are a form of wealth redistribution. McCain believes in wealth redistribution just as much as Obama. Politicians just dare never say it, or at least never put it in those exact words. Obama definitely should have chosen his words better, but what do you expect from these men after they've been campaigning nearly non-stop for almost two years straight, getting about 5 hours of sleep every night.
On a side note, have you seen the German film Good Bye Lenin? It's one of the few German films I've seen and I thought it was great. You mentioning East Germany reminded me of it.
Bryan,
Yes, I saw the film. I rent a lot of German movies at Blockbuster.
You imply, if I read you correctly, that socialist countries simply went awry because they became authoritarian due to Stalin and his influence. I think that is only partially correct. Communist countries have a pretty uniform record of being one-party authoritarian states. Stalin, of course, was a murderous tyrant. The point is that putting everything under govet control can only diminish liberties, rapidly or slowly.
Should taxation be a form of income redistribution? Or should it be a means of funding needed infrastructure and proecting and defending the state from foreign invasion and crime etc? Or do you think the govt's duty is to provide everything for everybody to get them through life?
Post a Comment