jkerouac02 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I don't believe I said anything about the EU in relation to social democracy...The EU discussion was just a side discussion unrelated to social democracy. When I was talking about SD in Europe, I meant Norway, Sweden, etc. Although many member states of the EU certainly have social democratic systems or at least parties.

gurnstein (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

The EU, social democracy, are you kidding! There's nothing democratic about the EU.

jkerouac02 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Sarah Palin: "Obama would experiment in socialism"politifact . com/truth-o-meter/statements/826/McCain admitted a few days ago that he didn't actually think Obama was socialist.On a basic level, Obama's plan is not socialist because it doesn't expand the welfare state. Please read Obama's plans for yourself, this election is too important not to! As someone who is sympathetic to "social democracy" as seen in Europe (which we call socialism), I can tell you Obama really isn't a socialist.

jkerouac02 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Its not really increasing the taxes on the rich as much as its just ending the tax cuts they got under Bush that were extremely expensive (part of the reason the debt is so high), & even McCain said were bad before he started running. The tax code would be how it was during the Clinton years (there was a lot of economic growth then). Even Nixon had a similar, "progressive" tax code. Obama isn't instituting anything radically different or something we haven't done many time in our history.

urbanlegend420 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

you are sillysocialism is socialismhow ironic is that you criticize wall street greed, but vote to obtain easy money from the rich. I do not make over 250k a year but i don't want your money. kiss my ass bill gates,i want to make my own money

curmosc (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

I think the upper class will live. Hes just bringing in certain aspects of socialism to a sytem that is struggling.

AtomicCombustion (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

The Democrats refused to regulate Sub Prime mortgages. Greenspan was not behind the CRA. THe CRA FORCED banks to issue sub prime loans to unqualified people. I'll say it again, CRA. The ideology regarding that is inconsequential because Greenspan is not king. People made the decisions to buy, not Greenspan. CRA CRA and CRA. Seriously though look it up. Legislation and Regulation caused this problem. Free Markets are Self-Regulating. The regulation that's good is the kind that regulates crime.

jkerouac02 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Furthermore, still assuming those things are socialist, doesn't the degree of socialism matter? There is no possible way you can objectively claim Obama's plans are as highly "socialist" as the socialism (or, rather, social democracy) seen in much of Europe. And certainly you can't say Obama's policies are anything like the policies of the USSR or Cuba.By your definition of socialism, many of the most highly ranked Presidents, including Lincoln, FDR, JFK, & Ronald Reagan, were all socialists.

jkerouac02 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

OK, let's assume for a moment that ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich and giving those below 250 a tax cut is socialism. You could also say Palin's distribution of AK oil profits are socialism, or McCain's support for the bailout & bank nationalization is socialism. Let's just assume that's all true for a moment. Does the word "socialism" automatically mean such policies are bad? If so, explain why.

LaxMan2112 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

The Obama Tax Plan, which is unrealistic in fact, is a form of socialism. Because 39% of the country does not pay a federal income tax, and tax cut for 95% of Americans would hand over rebate checkts to people who have not earned them. This is mass welfare AT THE EXPENSE of the upper class. I have studied government for many years at Wesleyan Univ, and this is in fact a form of socialism.