Republicans are The Real Socialists

I've been watching the news for the last few days (or maybe the last week) and frankly the fact that any intelligent idea actually gets out and discussed in the national media seems far-fetched and impossible. According to right wing talkers/news outlets, Obama is a socialist and that's bad. The country is really scared of that possibility. Unfortunately, the real socialists are the Republicans.

First, let's take a look at what socialism is:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Let's look more closely at the phrase, "advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Simply put, that means the government owns business.

And isn't that exactly that is happening right now with the bail-out plan originally advanced by Hank Paulson?

Exhibit 1

These are challenging times for our financial markets. We are working closely with the Federal Reserve, the SEC and other regulators to enhance the stability and orderliness of our financial markets and minimize the disruption to our economy. I support the steps taken by the Federal Reserve tonight to assist AIG in continuing to meet its obligations, mitigate broader disruptions and at the same time protect the taxpayers.

So -- the federal government is now in the insurance business.

Exhibit 2:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urged banks receiving $250 billion in capital injections from the government to use the funds to spur economic growth.

``We must restore confidence in our financial system,'' Paulson said at a press conference in Washington. ``The needs of our economy require that our financial institutions not take this new capital to hoard it, but to deploy it.''

With the equity purchases, Paulson is using more than a third of the $700 billion in government support Congress gave him the authority to use on Oct. 3. He didn't identify any of the lenders. People familiar with the plan said nine companies will get $125 billion: Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corp. and Bank of New York Mellon Corp.

Bottom line: the federal government is now one of the largest owners of bank equity out there.

So please -- stop telling me that the statement "spread the wealth around" is a dangerous statement. The Federal Government -- under a plan proposed by a Republican Treasury Secretary -- is alreay making investments in the means of production. This is radical socialism in a far more extreme manner.

Comments

[sandiegoecho]

Obama a Marxist? Ridiculous! Obama definitely does not believe, "to each according to his need". Obama in an intellectual elitist who values intelligence and education over exertion of human effort. In Obama's world the intellectuals will always be given more of the pie. A true Marxist would never take more than he "needs" simply because all intellectual effort comes easily to him. Obama is a self-serving fraud. A opportunist, yes, a Marxist, no!

[jchny]

Palin on Glenn Beck:

"Alaskans, collectively, we own these resources under ground..."

One of the two possible factors of production is collectively owned?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3jnbiHAMuY
(go to 7:49)

[randyandrews]

Exhibit 2 is right on the money. However your exhibit 1 is flawed, in that the Federal Reserve is not owned or controled by the Federal Government. The Federal Reserve is just as "Federal" as Federal Express is. The Federal Reserve is actually a private corporation that is contracted by the government to print and manage our money. So in summary, you're wrong about exhibit 1.

[ann arbor engr]

What serious "journalist" cites Wikipedia?

[epicdialogue]

one problem. the only politicians who put up a fight against the bailout...house republicans. not to mention that proving that some influential republicans are socialists (which they are) does not mean that most democrats are not socialists (which they are). the dems explicitly pushed for this government takeover (and would have pushed harder if it hadn't been a bush idea) and are talking about passing another as soon as obama is elected.

[mwestorca]

Here's what McCain had to say on redistribution of the tax load at a time when he was a better, more honest person:

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

Why isn't the DNC using this??

[TomSawyer]

socialism isn't a bad thing

socialism nor capitalism has never existed

this type of mudslinging is so infinitely regressive

instead of using the cliche term 'socialist', constructively criticize 'republican' economics

[Henry]

Tom,
I think it was the Republicans who started the mdslinging as you put it. If I weighed 350 pounds but called you "fatso", wouldn't you wonder where my mental compass was oriented?

[Maschine]

I like the term socialism. It denotes a mature and stable environment where EVERYONE benefits.

Capitalists, industrialists, free marketers etc all benefit from socialism. A healthy country that takes care of its citizens and / or it makes it one of their objectives is simply healthier and more vigorous.

No one can tell me an educated population isn't conducive to a propsperous one nor can you tell me a society that ensures everyone has the same access to health care isn't happier and more secure.

But then again, what do I know., I'll just take Greenspan and all his ivy league shysters word and keep going the way we have. America, land of the Free market and Capitalism, you gotta be joking.

[Andy L]

"Capitalists, industrialists, free marketers etc all benefit from socialism. A healthy country that takes care of its citizens and / or it makes it one of their objectives is simply healthier and more vigorous."

Yes, and socialists all benefit from free market capitalism. Regardless of what social programs are implemented, they are all going to be much more successful if they have a wealthy tax base to support them, and as far as we know there is no better way of producing wealth than through capitalism.

You can argue about which social programs we should implement, and you can argue about how they should be implemented, but when it comes to the question of how to produce enough wealth to pay for them, capitalism simply can't be beat.

[Andy L]

"No one can tell me . . . a society that ensures everyone has the same access to health care isn't happier and more secure."

Actually, I can. I can tell you that a society in which poor people have $500 a year to spend on health care and rich people have $500,000 a year to spend on health care is better than a society that ensures everyone has exactly $50 a year to spend on health care. Inequality is a bad thing, but there are definitely worse things.

I'm not just trying to trap you in a technicality. This goes back to my statement about capitalism being necessary for socialism. If you overburden the economy with taxes and social programs in an attempt to achieve equality, you are going to see a slowdown in business and foreign investment as successful entrepreneurs will seek out more competitive markets in which to operate. And once that happens, your ability to pay for government programs is going to weaken.

For that reason, I don't think we can ever achieve equality without first seeing production plummet to the point where everyone is equally poor. You can work to eliminate poverty, or you can work to eliminate inequality, but you're not going to be able to eliminate both.

So the question is: which one would you rather focus more energy on? If you answered poverty, then keep in mind that the opposite of poverty is wealth and that capitalism is really, really good at

[Andy L]

"But then again, what do I know., I'll just take Greenspan and all his ivy league shysters word and keep going the way we have. America, land of the Free market and Capitalism, you gotta be joking."

There was a time when America could have been called Land of the Free Market, but that is no longer the case. America's government spending as a percentage of GDP is roughly equal to Canada's. The American and Swedish governments spend almost exactly the same amount on health care per person. And as this article points out, the bailout is an example radical socialism in the worst possible way.

So if you're holding up America as the paragon of capitalism, then yes, you have got to be joking.

[SOLERSO68]

This piece brings to mind the MASSIVE, soviet like, communistic in scale, american prison system, borught to us courtesey of "the war on drugs" the war on drugs is a gargantuan spending program, of in the form of money for imprisoning more than 4 million people per year.

[leftLibertarian]

Spot one - Comrade Bush is using Soviet era tactics.

[Chavez08]

Excellent post!!! You hit the nail "smack" on the head and drove it straight into the heart of the GOPs anti-Obama/anti-New Deal argument.

Thanks!!!!

[MilwaukeeDan]

Bonddad, government Republicans also seem to love the military(as long as theirs don't have to serve), but the military is the most socialist part of government, think about it.

[jpaese]

Isn't Palin handing out oil revenue checks in Alaska a "socialistic" idea? Didn't McCain originally oppose the Bush tax cuts? The hypocrisy of this ticket is astounding.

[nas08]

You've made some very good observations about the Republican involvement in nationalizing and socializing business. As an independent, it absolutely goes against everything I believe. Beware, though that on either side of party lines lies people searching for power and control. Too many politicians have for too long been on the "Island of misfit toys" and will not readily give up that power.
While I am not an Obama supporter, neither do I believe that McCain has the answers. What I do value though, are my rights as an American citizen and I feel far more threatened with Obama and perhaps a filibuster-proof senate. I believe that if Obama takes the whitehouse, many Americans will discover that the promises of his party reduce our rights under the guise of helping all. I am middle class but I don't feel entitled to a dime of someone else's money. To feel entitled is a spirit of envy. It is time for every person to stand up and fix their own life and not rely on government to do it for them.

[xyoungblood]

naso8,

The money that you "don't feel entitled to" is your own tax money. It was yours in the first place. As far as the redistribution of wealth "meme", it's not Robin Hoodish. The wealthy don't own anything, they start corporations, and become CEO's, their homes and cars are owned by the corporation and become corporate perks of the CEO. They pay themselves in stock and only spend the profits from that investment. They are only taxed at 15% on that profit.

While I work 50 hours a week and get taxed 31%, as a middle class laborer.

We dems are not asking the Government for "handouts"; we only legislation that will create a fair playing field. It's like a sport where everyone playing, plays by the same rules.

[nas08]

Hmmm...The wealthy don't own anything? Certainly there is a very small minority of people who behave like Soros or some of the CEOs under investigation, just as you say. Doing the math, let's just say that they account for less than 10-20% of the wealthy (perhaps defined as making $250,000 or more per year). So what are the other 90% of wealthy people doing? Working for every penny! And you are right, I don't have a problem with tax breaks, but raising taxes on the wealthy is wrong. It should be the same rate for everyone, even you couldn't argue with that. You could even say that no taxes get paid on the first 30k or so. There are many people who get earned income tax credits, who are basically getting money that someone else paid into the system. It is wrong. Let's stop the welfare and start teaching people to catch their own fish.

[problemchild]

Points all well taken, nice to see other ideas. From the NY Post, I saw an Republican article worth reading:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_ideas_for_a_radical_court_135633.htm

A person's comment after: How do you overlook the scariest part of Obama's comment, immediately following his Warren Court comment? "... generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can"t do to you, says what the federal government can"t do to you, but it doesn"t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf..."

It's not scary, it's true. "Our "freedom" we all tak about is a negative right, not positive. "Choice? " What choice with only 2 major parties? Green card holders with a good job have the SAME rights. Non-citizens enjoy everything citizens do, and don't even have to sit on jury duty. They're even welcome in our armed forces. You don't have to be a citizen to be in the military. So what special rights do CITIZENS get? Only the right to vote. But if you're a felon in the most incarcerated population in the world, you could lose that. If you're homeless with no address, you lose it too. Technically we should be able to write a NEW constitution any time if it's a democracy. And put an end to Supreme Court stacking games.

[uncleentropy]

The funny thing (but in a pathetic way) about Paulson socialism is that the public ownership of lending institutions or insurance companies does not translate into the creation of an egalitarian society, or anything close to it, as your definition suggests. His brand of public ownership is socialist in strategy only, leaving powerful institutions flush with money but still largely unaccountable....

[olephart]

Socialism is much more basic than you have outlined. Republicans claim that redistributing tax monies from one group to another is socialism. They point to Obama's plan to pay for tax cuts for lower income individuals by allowing the tax cuts given to those earning over $250,000 to expire. This expiration being a net tax increase. Also, they make the case that many who do not pay income tax will get some of these monies. The Bush tax cuts applied to all those making anything over that which is not excluded by standard deductions and structured to give the greatest benefits to those earning the most. When Republicans talk about taxes they only consider income taxes. Those who work but do not pay income taxes are said "not to pay taxes". This ignores the Payroll Tax, sales taxes, property taxes etc.

Payroll Tax monies are comingled with income tax monies. This slight of hand is a way spend Social Security monies and to obfuscate the real deficit. It also brings up the point that those who pay Payroll Taxes and didn't get a tax cut from Bush were essentially having money redistributed from their earnings to another group. That group largely being those earning over $250,000. This fits the Republican definition of socialism. But according to Republicans; monies going from the rich to the poor is socialism whereas monies going from the poor to the rich is supply side economics.

[WIpatriot]

I call it theft, olephart....

[olephart]

Theft is what they put young Black men in jail for. However, if you multiply it by a billion and the money goes to the wealthy it's called promoting growth.

[DuganS1]

Those who earn the most get the biggest benefit from a tax cut because they by far pay the most taxes. What does the payroll tax, sales tax,or property taxes have to do with the federal income tax rate? The payroll tax is paid back at retirement. Are you saying the tax should be cut while the retirement benefits remain the same.... like pretending the same amount of money was paid in? Sales and property taxes are local taxes. How was money "redistributed" to those earning over $250K? I'd like to hear that one...., especially considering people who earn over that amount pay over 40% of all the federal income tax.

[olephart]

Payroll taxes and income taxes are thrown into the same pot (comingled). Once in each dollar is the same there is no differentation. This is why the reported Federal deficit is so much less than what is actually borrowed (total debt). Thus the Payroll taxes paid in that are in excess of what is paid out becomes revenue identical to that recieved as income taxes. There is NO difference in the monies at that point. Thus it could be rebated as a tax cut to anyone or spent on any program from welfare to war. The point is that it is the SAME mechanism from poor to rich as rich to poor. Oh, how about Federal gasoline taxes, taxes on tobacco, Federal excise taxes being redistributed to the rich? How's your hearing, can you hear me now?

[mwestorca]

With all their loopholes, they don't EVER pay that amount. I remember back in the 70's. Ronald Reagan's tax disclosure showed that he paid NO taxes in the year before he went to the White House. It was all covered by legal loopholes.

I, on the other hand, was very poor. I had just gone back to college, was trying to help support my family, and, as poor as I was, I still had to pay taxes! But he didn't.

[FreedomCorpse]

only banks are not a means of production, unless someone believes lending on deposits at a minimum of 10 to 1 leverage is 'producing' something.

The means of production, manufacturing, is or has left the country to slave labor markets...only to sell their 'goods' at higher profits elsewhere.

[Henry]

Banks produce money. When a bank pays interest on a sav account or a certificate of deposit they are expensing that production into the market place the same way GM expenses steel into the production of a car.
It is also true that banks create money, not in the industrial sense (it's only rental "credits" that act as money). It is that money that finances production. No bank loans to finance production we'd be like a tribe of natives, there'd be no capital formation, no economy of scale, and assembly lines.

[iisopen]

Henry,
It has been quite some time since a savings account or cd outpaced the rate of
the FED created inflation on necessary consumables like energy, food and other things.
Nothing is created here that isn't already swallowed economically.

[SOLERSO68]

i like what bernie sanders said."the only thing we're producing is debt, and it has proven to be very low quality debt."