Wendy,
re: the difference between socialism and Marxism. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing. As you know, I'm taking college courses, and one of them touched on the difference between socialism and communism, which made things clearer for me. Communism (more or less the same as Marxism?) is a system where the state has total control over labor, capital, and all other resources (factors of production). Socialism, according to the text, is when the state has control over *some* key industries (like, for instance, banking... hmm), or only part of the economy. But the redistribution of wealth part wasn't discussed.
(and ALL taxes are redistributive, after all, as is just about all government spending)
Um, no. Ideally, in America, taxes go to pay for state and federal services like interstate highways, the courts, and defense. Services that can't be provided by anyone else. There's been a lot of redistribution built into the system over the decades, but that's a bug, not a feature. IMO. Obama, however, clearly likes that part, and wants to increase it. Come to think of it, I'm guessing the socialism part is because with higher tax rates, government controls a larger percentage of GDP?
Since when has Obama even hinted at opposition to private enterprise? Has he so much as suggested public control of private corporations? Of course he hasn't.
No, other than railing against "greed on Wall Street" etc (which McCain does, too
), and Joe Biden telling an audience that they'll make those CEOs pay for their errors, and, I quote, "their pensions go first." I thought pensions were supposed to be private property? I heard something about increasing the minimum wage, too, but that may have been Congress. But anyway, no, of course he hasn't openly campaigned that way, because he knows that in America, it would be toxic to his campaign.
This is one thing I loathe about modern-day politics; accusations which may be completely untrue - such as Obama not being born in the US, or Palin cutting spending on special needs - or which are at best misleading make their way around blogs and gossip sites as fast as a virus, and they're impossible to kill completely. There are plenty of voters out there who still believe some of these inaccurate or misleading rumours.
Agreed. If we truly had impartial journalism, that would cut down on it. But since very few people think *any* networks are unbiased, there's room for rumors to thrive. Think about it -- you try to prove something to me based on the New York Times, I'm gonna dismiss it out of hand. Vice versa, if I'm citing Fox News, ditto.
Patti -- I know how you feel, but Kathy's right. We've got to keep this respectful to all the viewpoints. If you want to vent, there are lots of places where you can do that among friends. Here's not the right place for that.
LabRat, I tend to agree with you, which is why I haven't paid much attention to the Khalidi stuff. But video of Obama actually applauding anti-Semitism would stir up quite a fuss. We don't have nearly the level of anti-Semitism over here as you do in Europe. And US policy towards Israel is a definite issue. It would probably change some votes. Not a lot, probably, but it's a close election to start with.
PJ
