Are Clinton and Obama Communists?

The right has been cranking up the communist charge in this election. I guess it worked for the 50 years ago, so why not trot it out again?

I came across this today at the Republican TownHall site: Obama, Clinton And Capitalism: It's Okay For Them, But Nobody Else,

The big irony here is that while Obama has done extremely well for himself in our very unique free-market economy, he has the "audacity" to demonize others who have done well for themselves, and to propose economic policies that, if implemented, would radically change our nation into something more akin to a Western European socialist state.

OK, let's examine that for a minute. Aside from the implications that they are communists, what does "Western European Socialist State" really mean? European citizens get 5 weeks paid vacation per year for everyone, free full-coverage health care for everyone, generous pays and pensions for everyone (with retirement earlier than here), corporations required to benefit the public, modern public transit systems, child care, clean public-oriented cities, governments responsive to the people instead of the wealthy, the corporations and the big military contractors, ... oh I could go on and on about the terrible state of things for Western European citizens...

And what are some of the examples of Clinton and Obama's supposedly communistic policies?

Obama has proposed a federal crack down on what he deems "excessive pay" for corporate executives. He has proposed that the federal government begin taxing people's capital (not just earnings or interest payments, but, yes, capital itself). He has proposed that the capital gains tax rate be raised to 28%, nearly doubling its current rate of 15%. And he has made it a constant theme of his campaign to lament "Bush's tax cuts for the rich,"

. . .[Clinton] has berated the reality of America being an "ownership society" (despite the recent increase in mortgage foreclosures, home ownership in America is still at an all-time high), saying that in reality we are an "on your own" society. Her remedy for the "problem" is for us to become a "we're in this together society," a nation of "shared responsibility" AND "shared prosperity."

Conservatives lament that people should have to actually give back a bit to the public by paying taxes, after the public's investment in roads and bridges and law enforcement and military and schools and the legal and financial infrastructure made them rich. The writer thinks that the roads and bridges and schools and everything else that enabled that ecosystem which enables people to get rich just magically appeared. The writer doesn't seem to know that it was taxes that built that system -- OUR taxes -- and thinks the beneficiaries of this public investment should just freeload off the rest of us.

Taxes are the reason we have a thriving economic ecosystem. Tax cuts make us poor. And people getting rich off of our public investment and giving nothing back is the reason we don't get 5 weeks vacation, health care, and all the rest here.

If the conservatives are trying to scare me away from voting for Clinton or Obama by claiming that if elected they will bring us 5 weeks paid vacation a year, free health coverage and the rest, and that the cost will be taxing rich CEOs and corporations -- well I gotta tell you I want to get me some of that!

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson

Comments

[Hollyse]

Obama and Hillary aren't communists, but Marxists! They're legendary "hot air propulsion systems",
expelling gas as if over eating and digestion, isn't likely to happen without probiotics for enzyme cooperation. John Wayne died with at least 30 pounds of excess 'crap' in his intestines and history tells us that excess of Lord-Master rule leads to the same end. The Lords and the Serfs of logic is but the beginning to a fantasy end of poverty and destruction of this nation. How much of Cognitive Disonace do both allow for their so called We the People of this nation? They aren't of We the People, but of a class of the elite and we are those of support systems to their needs. I am ashamed of the journey We the People have allowed reaching this stage of corruption and poverty within our nation. What are the numbers of whites to blacks belonging to the communist or marxist parties? Betcha the logic of skin color is secondary to that of 'entitlement' no matter what race you're aligned with. Nature has other plans for survival of the poor to that of the NWO. A SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD IS DUE!

[JacobSinger]

"A SHOT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD IS DUE!"

I'll tell you what is OVERDUE...YOUR MEDICATION.

LITHIUM IS YOUR FRIEND :-)

[piffle]

Good post. Unfortunately Americans have a knee-jerk reaction against taxes. Suppose the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy were abolished. Suppose everyone paid a bit more. But then suppose we had affordable health care, higher education, reliable pensions - wouldn't it be worth it?

Nothing is "free" but if the cost is spread out across the population, these benefits can be affordable - and fair. It's like the actuarial table in an insurance plan, except that the 'group' consists of --- everyone. We need some re-education about this.

[tbone99]

If we had 5 or 6 week vacations, healthcare costs would probably decrease dramatically as most disease processes are the result of stress weakening our immune system.

[BrighterStar]

I don’t know if they are communists, but neither are strong believers in capitalism. They are running campaigns based on taking private sector industries and turn them over to the government.

[WHusseinLA]

Health care, yes. It would be nice to enter the 21st century, like the rest of the Western world.

[tbone99]

Name one- even their healthcare policies cave to insurance companies, who have been screwing consumers for years.

[rollingdivision]

The problem with Obama and Clinton is that all their policies revolve around a single solution to all problems, increase politicians' control. With all the politicians' abuses of power, incompetence and downright malfeasance do we really want to increase politicians control over more of our lives? Getting "free health care", five weeks vacation and the rest of it means I give more control of my life to politicians, so, count me out. And as far as the take it from the rich idea, they don't have enough money to cover half of what the Democrats are proposing even if you took every last penny the rich have. So I know who will pay for all this "free" stuff.

[MelloY]

Fair point. The government has proven that it is very inefficient at running things. It's one of the basic flaws of our system. That said, I think it is more constructive to look at it from this point of view: Is the current system working? If not, which candidate has the best solutions for the problems? Which one is more able to get Congress to work together to pass them?

Personally, I don't see how McCain would help the country. He would continue many of the same policies of the last 8 years that have been failures. He would also be a Republican president with a likely Democratic Congress. This would ensure that very little would actually get done. At least with a Democratic President, something will get done. If it fails, it will show that the progressives are wrong and a country that leans conservative will be happy to vote Republican in 4 years' time.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

"The government has proven that it is very inefficient at running things."

Republicans have proven that THEY are, not that government is. Your argument is profoundly anti-democracy. We, the People ARE the government. Any "inefficiency" is the result of open, transparent and accountable systems and procedures, so all the people can see where their money is going.

Remember the old saying about Mousilini -- he made the trains run on time. He combined corporations with the government. That might SEEM more efficient, but we have seen the results of that same experiment here in the last few years.

But beyond the right-wing slogans, in fact Medicare is VASTLY more efficient than private health insurance. Other government programs are VASTLY more efficient than private efforts, partly because no one at the top is siphoning off hundreds of millions for their private jets. Big corporations are vastly less efficient than government.

[rollingdivision]

I didn't mention efficiency, my concern is the constant and unrelenting drive by the Democrats and progressives to vastly increase the power and control of our lives by politicians. You have fallen into the trap, government isn't the solution to many problems, rather government is the problem.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

"Do you really think all of those new Democratic programs are going to be paid for by rolling back the wealthier Americans tax breaks."

When I hear arguments like this one the only response is:

Three trillion dollars for the Iraq war. So shut up.

[rimmer]

Great post Dave!

[PoliticalDookie]

I think a more accurate term for them is socialist. It would be more palatable if they would practice what they preach. Case in point, Michelle Obama made over $300k as a BS VP of outreach for Chicago hospitals. She epitomizes the waste that ramps up the costs of healthcare. Her position was a direct result of Obama's senate seat and little more than a payoff for access.

[bichn]

Michelle went to Princeton then Harvard. She could have any job she wants. What evidence is there that she got this job as a direct result of her husband's senate seat?

[tbone99]

Timing

[RandomStu]

Johnson writes, "If the conservatives are trying to scare me away from voting for Clinton or Obama by claiming that if elected they will bring us 5 weeks paid vacation a year, free health coverage and the rest, and that the cost will be taxing rich CEOs and corporations -- well I gotta tell you I want to get me some of that!"

There are many voters who don't follow this line of reasoning, which encourages us to vote for whichever candidate proposes the greatest amount of "free" goodies that promise financial benefit for me personally. Most voters place greater emphasis on ethics and self-reliance... not grabbing all they can get for themselves. Most voters find the implication -- that stealing is OK if you think someone is "too right" -- morally offensive.

Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog

[JacobSinger]

Stuart:

Perhaps you should try weeding out some of those random thoughts; if you look closely, you might actually find some intelligent ones in there too.

Only an American completely out of touch with the state of the nation and its general populace would lay claim to such an lame and ignorant observation, particularly by claiming that "Most voters place greater emphasis on ethics and self-reliance..." which is laughable; most voters are today are concerned about surviving in this totally GOP-wrecked economy. Also, by fairly taxing higher incomes and adding that into the pot that pays for benefits all US citizens, only an imbecile would refer to such as stealing.

[MelloY]

Here's what conservatives are really thinking. Nothing is for free. Those 5 weeks of vacation come at a loss of productivity. That "free" health care is paid for by taxes. Those CEOs earned their money. If it was denied, why wouldn't they go to another country where they could earn it?

I'm not saying all of that is correct, but that's really what they are thinking. Personally, I think there has to be a balance. I think 2 weeks of vacation a year should be required for full time year round employees. 4 is enough for those that can put the years into a company to earn it. Companies are free to give more if they that it is their best interest. Obama's health care plan is a good test of building a national system. It allows us to ensure that our infrastructure isn't overwhelmed and hopefully gives us time to learn from mistakes and improve the system before it goes national. Some CEOs' compensations are silly. If shareholders won't hold them accountable then the government should.

[JacobSinger]

So...a GE employee who works in France should get the mandatory six weeks in vacation time, but we Americans should be happy to have a job and whatever time off we can get from the same corporation?

And FYI, this is NOT a hypothetical scenario....

[Pquilson]

"If shareholders won't hold them accountable then the government should."

The government should hold them accountable to whom, and for what?
The government has a vested interest in people, even "rich CEOs", earning more money. The more money people make, the more they pay in taxes. Not just income taxes, but sales taxes, excise taxes.
So my question is why would the government hold CEOs accountable for the pay they receive, whether you think it is excessive or not.
I would love to have 5 or 6 weeks of paid vacation. Unfortunately, I am a self employed independent contractor. If I do not work, I do not get paid. Vacation? Nope. Insurance? Nope, not unless I pay for it. Unemployment if my clients run out of work for me to do? Nope.
It was my choice as to the way I earn a living. It is the choice of the boards of directors and shareholders of the corporations to determine the compensation of their CEOs. if I do not own shares in the corporation, I have no say. The government also has no say. Therefore, the government has no standing to hold the CEO accountable for the compensation received by that CEO so long as no laws are breached.

[JacobSinger]

Obviously the Right doesn't want to get into issues of class warfare...simply because doing so undermines their ability to conduct class warfare in a stealthy manner. Liberal opinions are dismissed as Un-American, and the rightwing pundits are well-paid meat-puppets.

Socialist programs are good for the rich, government office holders, and for multi-billion dollar corporations, but not for the public at large. It has nothing to do with cost, but with the enabling abilities that it promotes in the lower classes; get too many poor people healthy, well-fed and ambitious, and the next thing you know fat-cat corporations will be faced with a work force that demands unions or union-comparable benefits; if fewer people were selling illegal drugs because they were working on government socialist programs for rebuilding our infrastructure, there would be fewer people in prisons, so the privatized prison system would suffer; and if too many formerly unskilled workers find decent jobs in ANY capacity because an adequate social safety net improved their overall changes of escaping poverty, there wouldn't be enough of people volunteering to be military canon fodder.

Jeez, it all makes so much sense--why can't we liberals see that in America, socialist programs are an elitist entitlement, and just won't work for anyone but our lawmakers, corporations and the 1%?

[Denni]

If that's what they're trying to scare you with, I say BRING IT ON! I'm ready to vote for Sen. Obama, anyway. A humane policy toward the care of the American worker? Say it ain't SO! Yeah, that'll keep voters home or have them switching to 'Gruel is enough for you' McCain.

[AnotherHuddy]

It is worth noting some of the things the Republicans and the Soviets have in common: a dysfunctional, totalitarian and ultimately self-destructive system.
~s~

[JacobSinger]

So very true; unregulated Capitalism is no more likely to succeed than Communism, as both systems discount and ignore the inherent human corruption factor. Either will lead to ruin if left unchecked.

[Dalicious]

No, they're socialists. The many problems of the right include the inability to distinguish between socialism and communism, which are by no mean the same.

[ShawnMichel]

AH-HAHAHAH­AHAHAHAHAH­A!!!

What an idiot you are.

[FogBelter]

Communism was the gift that kept on giving for the United States right wing, of course they will go back to the well one more time!

When you think of all the money the Cold War brought into US Business it's hard to identify better friends of the United States Chamber of Commerce than Lenin, Marx, Mao, Stalin and Ho Chi Minh.

[cla62]

You're spreading as much propaganda as the republicans Johnson. Do you really think all of those new Democratic programs are going to be paid for by rolling back the wealthier Americans tax breaks. Tell the truth. If or when those tax cuts get rolled back, the middle income is going to be paying more taxes as well. Just tell the truth man, that's all we ask. It's out there, we're just not hearing it from you.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

"Do you really think all of those new Democratic programs are going to be paid for by rolling back the wealthier Americans tax breaks."

Three trillion dollars for the Iraq war. What else is there to say in response to arguments like this one?

[WHusseinLA]

"If or when those tax cuts get rolled back, the middle income is going to be paying more taxes as well. "

===

You make a baseless claim bookended by "tell the truth?" Well, there's some Limbaugh logic for you.

[DavePM]

Red is my favorite color. Am I a Communist? I also hated the movie Red Dawn. Oh no. All the signs are there.