I’m still not sure what you guys think he will do as a socialist, other than raise taxes on those making $200-250,000. And yeah - I noticed that one day they were saying “$200,000” instead of “$250,000” - but I think it was Biden. His mouth is like a constant clerical error.
Do you simply considering social program spending to be socialism? Let me ask you this:
Do you think Obama will be more socialist than Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and LBJ? Or, for that matter, FDR? I guess sometimes democratic or “progressive” policy is considered socialist (and in part, it is) at its core. So is that what you’re referring to - or is there something else more...sinister that people think he’s going to do?
The difference is this:
Yes, we have a progressive tax (don’t get me started on that.) Those who have more, give more. It goes to the government kitty, where it is spent on various government services including, unfortunately, entitlement programs.
What Obama proposes to do is take money from those who have been successful, then turn around and give it DIRECTLY to those who have been less successful.
That’s what we object to. He wants a direct transfer of money to those who did not earn it for the sole purpose of “evening things up.” We vehemently disagree with that.
And frankly, it doesn’t matter whether he said $250, $200K, or $50K. Taking from any one person the money they have worked hard to earn and giving it to another is theft in my book.
I know it doesn't match the dictionary definition of "socialism", but when the government tells me what to do with my money, that's it. Perhaps we should come up with a better name. How about "nanny-state-ism"?
Seriously, should the state coerce me into saving for my retirement?
... or buying health insurance?
... or providing a college education?
Any of these things should be my responsibility and my choice. Or, if I choose, it should be my choice to provide these things for another person or organization of my choosing.
But Mr Obama wishes to provide all these things for everyone in the nation, and he is going to take more from ME to provide these things for everyone else. He is going to "spread the wealth around". He is going to spread MY wealth around whether I approve of it or not.
It's more than spending money on social programs. It the whole "don't worry about making bad decisions ... we are going to take care of you with no regard for your culpability in the situation".
One of the guys at work has a sign that says "Stupidity should be painful". Those who are sometimes described as "leftist" (I would argue "up-ists") seem to be bent on making stupidity painless. While making wisdom and self-direction and personal responsibility and success painful.
Take a look at Change.gov is changing.
This is a classic example of what I was talking about. Take something that is a laudable personal decision. Then FORCE someone to make that decision. Then FORCE someone else to foot the bill.
After all these kids are forced to “volunteer”, how are all these overseeing organizations going to be funded?
Isn't it funny that someone who claims to want to “spread the wealth” and who believes we “are our brother's keeper” never seems to get around to spreading HIS OWN wealth or keeping HIS OWN brother (or aunt). It seems to always be spread MY wealth whether I want to or not.