McCain can call Obama a socialist or Teddy Roosevelt his hero, but not both
By ClarusVisum
@ClarusVisum (2163)
United States
November 1, 2008 10:11am CST
"Imagine that instead of telling Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher that "when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody," Barack Obama had said the following:
We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.
The New York Post's Page One would blare: "OBAMA: I'LL SEIZE 'SWOLLEN FORTUNES'!" Bill Kristol would demand to know, in his New York Times column, what godly powers enabled Obama to discern precisely whose wealth—David Geffen's? George Soros'?—would "benefit the community." On Fox News, Bill O'Reilly would start to say something, then sputter, turn purple, and keel over backward in a grand mal seizure.
John McCain, meanwhile, would have to stop saying that Teddy Roosevelt is his hero, because the passage quoted above is from T.R.'s "New Nationalism" speech of 1910. Either that, or McCain would have to quit calling Barack Obama a socialist." -- http://www.slate.com/id/2202950/
2 people like this
4 responses
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
1 Nov 08
Thanks for pointing this out, C.V., but I'm not surprised that the right has managed their usual spin. Of course, someone can be your "hero" without your agreeing with him/her 100% - IOKIYAR! If not, will that's a totally different story. Its the same thing with McCain's total disdain for over 40% of the American people whose President he aspires to be, those who don't pay Federal Income Tax and therefore aren't deserving of getting a tax credit because THAT would be socialism; guess who started the Earned Income Credit, for those of you who don't know? McCain's OTHER hero, Ronald Reagan!
Annie
2 people like this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
1 Nov 08
One can admire a particular person and look at them as their hero without agreeing or believing 100% in their beliefs or political views.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
1 Nov 08
"One can admire a particular person and look at them as their hero without agreeing or believing 100% in their beliefs or political views."
And yet, Obama couldn't have even served on the same board with Ayers without being called a terrorist sympathizer (or even an actual terrorist) by conservatives.
Double standard, anyone?
2 people like this
@tdavis (117)
• United States
1 Nov 08
If it were merely one board, and speeches it would not be that big of a deal. But to initially say you were't friends, then hold your coming out political party at his house on your block, and say that Ayers did not host it some other female did, then she comes forward and says no I did not host it, Ayers did. It appears that he is lying, deceptive, not being 100% truthful. I know everyone lies, but we are talking about Obama at this time. Lawyers and politicians use words to circumvent truth, after all,"What is, is".
We, as human beings tend to associate in our personal lives with people that hold the same values and interests as ourselves. Look at who Obama hangs with, and look at their values, interests, and morals and you will see a reflection of Obama's true beliefs.
@CherylsPearls (1269)
• United States
1 Nov 08
Wait...I'm still envisioning O'Reilly turning purple...
Ok, I don't know of anything about McCain that is like Teddy Roosevelt; wonder why he considers him a hero? I greatly admire T.R. I use bunches of quotes from him. My favorite after G.W. Bush became President and his supporters didn't want him critized at all is:
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
I have always admired Teddy Roosevelt; if McCain were anything like him, I might even vote for him. Sadly, he is not.
I agree, McCain cannot claim to admire Roosevelt and then say the things he does about Obama being a socialist. It's the same sort of garbage that was done to Teddy in the first place.
1 person likes this
@tdavis (117)
• United States
1 Nov 08
As far as I am concerned, I believe in the fairness doctrin. Everyone one pays a flat percentage of their income. Employee's would not have to do tax returns, their payment have already been made. You would reduce the tax loop holes, reduce the tax code and reduce the IRA, excuse me the IRS. I get confused sometimes, they are both terrorist, the mere mention of their name sends shivers up and down the average tax payers spine.
Back to your orginal statement, usually people hold someone a hero for an act they committed in their lifetime. Rarely are they referring to the man's entire life, including everything and every facet of their life. I am not sure if Obama is a marksist, socialist, or capitalist. A lot depends on your definitions, most people are a combination of the three, but the dominate view is how they are preceived.
The more important issue is if, and referring to all candidates and politicians, they lie, misrepresent themselves, or basicly commit a fraud on the American people should they either be removed from office and possibley put into jail. Shouldn't they be accountable for the words that come out of their mouth. I would like to see a group, list promises made, hold them accountable and file civil suits for breach of a verbal contract, unless they can articulate in specific terms, when and why their promise can not be kept.
We as a country have been going down hill since people have become politicians, instead of citizens wanting to serve their country. Both are socialists, it's a matter of degree.
1 person likes this
@ClarusVisum (2163)
• United States
1 Nov 08
In order to get the same amount of revenue with a flat tax as we do now, the middle class would have to have its taxes raised a LOT, crippling them. Remember, every dollar makes a lot more of a difference to someone making $42k (iirc, that's the average income in the US) than it does to someone making a few hundred thousand a year.
So in that way, a flat tax WOULDN'T be fairer, because it would reduce the burden on the wealthy at the cost of dramatically increasing it on everyone else.
2 people like this
@newtondak (3946)
• United States
1 Nov 08
The "Fairness Doctrine" has nothing to do with taxes. "The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
I do agree that a flat tax on everyone's income - no deductions, no exemptions, no loopholes - is the best way to go.
@tdavis (117)
• United States
1 Nov 08
Fairness, and right are two different things. A flat tax would take the same percentage of tax from everyone, everyone is equal. If you have ten apples, the goverment takes one, if I have a hundred the goverment takes 10. That is fair and right.
Fair or right has nothing to do with making people that make more, pay a higher percentage of what they make just because they made more. I don't understand why people can not understand when it comes to taxes why we can not treat everyone the same. Espically when they want equality eveywhere else.
The goverment is not suppose to be the safety net for every citizen. People should be responible for themselves. Again, if you as a free person want to give money to someone due to their situation that fine, but why should I have to give money or support to someone who is where they are due to choices they made and have taken so much from family and friends that they will no longer support them. The goverment is too big and needs to live with-in its means, just as I do.
In a free society I can give to whom I choose, or not. When the goverment or someone else makes that decision it is not freedom.
1 person likes this
