10/27/2008

Is Obama a socialist?

Labels:

7 Comments:

Blogger One Sensible Progressive said...

That's the scariest interview I've heard yet about Senator Obama. Why is this not on every news show out there?

Why is John McCain not putting this out on national television?

10/27/2008 3:04 AM  
Blogger scooteraz said...

I didn't realize the Constitution was supposed "to do" anything FOR ME, I thought it was outlining my freedom "to do" for myself.

Astounding.

10/27/2008 4:29 AM  
Anonymous Plubius of Baltimore said...

Given Obama's recent answer to Joe the Plumber's question in Ohio, a 2001 interview where he says it's a tragedy that 'redistribution of wealth not pursued by the supreme court', and his debate answer where he said health care 'is a right' (i.e. he thinks some have a claim on other people's property in order to pay for health care), Obama for sure is a hardcore socialist. If he gets elected he will indeed change the United States--for the worse.

10/27/2008 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Alaska the most socialist state in the country? Under Governor Palin, the 2008 "share the oil wealth" payment to each resident increased a whopping 50% from 2007:

http://tinyurl.com/6pkmqa

Welcome to the People's Republic of Alaska, where every resident this year will get a $3,200 payout, thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Sarah Palin, the state's Republican governor. That's $22,400 for a family of seven, like Palin's. Since 1982, the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests oil revenues from state lands, has paid out a dividend on invested oil loot to everyone who has been in the state for a year. But Palin upped the ante by joining with Democrats and some recalcitrant Republican state legislators to share in oil company windfall profits, further fattening state tax revenue and permitting an additional payout in tax funds to residents.

10/27/2008 9:18 AM  
Anonymous wind river said...

Anonymous, for your ignorance you get a A+. The money paid to Alaskans is for the oil that the companies take. It is a payment to the OWNERS of the petroleum, not a share the wealth program. I will call it royalties to make it easier for you to understand.

10/27/2008 2:58 PM  
Anonymous JWM said...

Your argument is subtle but skewed. You see, the oil is the resource of the state and as such the resource of the people of the state. In this case the state acted with due diligence to return to the people what is belonged to the people. It would be fair that the state received some compensation for acting as agent for the people so I hope that some small part of the monies were kept for the state for their efforts on behalf of the people.

The oil is the product of no one's work other than Mother Nature's. The monies collected by the state are the cost of doing business with the people of Alaska and. If you don't want to pay the money then drill in another state.

The product contained in my wallet is the product of no ones effort other than myself. I do not consider my hard work as owned by the Federal Government and therefore owned by the people of America. So when the government reaches into my pocket to "redistribute" MY hard earned wealth, it in no way resembles the Alaska Permanent Fund. It represents "redistribution" of MY wealth to those that do not deserve it due to lack of education, laziness, drug addiction or work ethic.

But I'm sure that the nuance of this argument escapes you.

10/27/2008 3:05 PM  
Anonymous JWM said...

Sorry wind river we seemed to have both posted about the same time. My comments were directed at the "deep thinking" Anonymous that has graced us with his enlighten vision of America.

10/27/2008 4:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home