I've received many comments about my previous blog entry, which I'm sure you know by now was written to stimulate a political discussion. For me, experience is really a moot point. I only brought it up because I hear so many Obama supporters criticize Palin for her lack of experience. To which, I can only say, at least she ran a state (no matter the population size!).
Second, I do believe that Obama is a social democrat. That is, I believe that he seeks to combine elements of socialism and capitalism. To call him a pure socialist is wrong, as I don't believe he seeks to completely replace capitalism. The question left to the voter is: Does he go too far for comfort? Answer it carefully, because it might surprise you to know that you probably have socialist beliefs as well. Even the Declaration of Indpendence embraces it so far as to say, "All men are created equal." And they are. Just being human gives you lots of rights and entitlements. Having a right to another man's wealth is not one of them. I'm a big believer and supporter of a capitalist society. I also believe that every person should have an equal chance to earn wealth, not accept wealth.
Furthermore, lots of government agencies could be seen as socialist in nature...even the United States Postal Service, which is an example of a nationalized business. Also, education, welfare, medicaid, etc., are forms of state control of capital. But, that's neither here nor there. I just think with all the lingo that's being thrown around the media, it's important that we understand the definitions, just a little bit. So, ultimately, do I think Obama is a socialist? No. Does he get a little too inclined to share for my comfort? Yes. I am admittedly a selfish Republican. Is he evil? I don't think so.
Since nobody likes to read a 1,500 word blog post, I'll end now. But come back for a discussion on the economy. And don't worry, we'll get to McCain, too...
15 comments:
You're great! I wish I could write like you! Ya know grandma would probably shun me if I said I was going to vote for Obama. YIKES! Ya see, I can see both sides and I always have been able to see both sides from every aspect of my life. Some things I like and dislike from both the republican and democratic sides, it's hard for me to choose. I always seem to lean towards republican though because that's what has been breathed down my neck my whole life.
Leslie would be so proud of your post.
Excellent points. You know I appreciate your ability to really see both sides of an issue. I'm always stuck in the middle...in fact, I consider myself a moderate because I have beliefs that tend to fall into both neo-traditional party slots.
I seriously do not consider myself very socialist, but I do think I would be willing as a citizen to pay into a basic national health care plan with my tax dollars. I mean, I'm already paying for the basic health care for a bunch of poor people, so why shouldn't I get two free preventative doctors visits a year and free basic prescriptions? (That is part of the Rachael Muldrow plan for health care, by the way, not either of the candidates!)
It seems to me that the backlash about Palin's "experience" was just payback for all the accusations earlier in the campaign about Obama's experience level. And I have to say - I don't think any job, a governorship or otherwise - really prepares you to run a country. I mean, sure, you may have some different skill sets that you pick up as a governor, but that doesn't always mean you're going to be able to utilize them or that it will make you better at it. I think it's how well the person takes the experience and knowledge they have doing any civic work they've done to enhance their working abilities. You know - it's just critical thinking skills: You don't really need a manual, but you need to know what people you need to have around in order to be able to fill in your knowledge gaps. I think that's another reason people are perplexed by Palin's nomination...not that she's not a good governor or whatever, but if you take the choice of Joe Biden for Obama's VP, then you see that he is getting someone who is experienced in "the game" to sort of fill in some of those gaps, while it leaves one to wonder what EXACTLY Palin offers John McCain.
I really don't mean that in a mean way, either. I just always thought it seemed a little too "publicity stunty"
Okay, so, to respond to whether or not Obama wants to go "too far" towards socialism, I'd need to see more concrete examples of his plans that are supposedly leading us down that path. Yes he supports restoring the top marginal tax rate to its pre-Bush tax cuts level, but that isn't exactly a high level anyway. Here is an article showing the top tax rate in the US over time.
Other things he supports that leap to mind include a not-quite-universal health care plan. Obama's plan only covers mandatory insurance for children. So, I'd need to see actual examples of his policies that are more socialist than the country at large to decide whether I agree or disagree.
Finally as to the general argument against socialism, to say "I also believe that every person should have an equal chance to earn wealth, not accept wealth." and somehow decide that is enough of an argument against socialism of even a moderate nature is completely avoiding a detailed discussion of socialism. Yes, I'd also like to keep the money I make, but I'd also like to not be burdened by the costs we incur due to the gaps in health insurance coverage. I also would like to drive on the roads paid for by taxes. I want there to be public education. I want the elderly to not be forced to work until they drop dead. I'd like to see the opportunities I took advantage of to be extended to those who don't have the economic means to afford the college I went to. There is nothing inherently wrong with socialism, although I don't advocate its complete adoption either. I think it is morally reprehensible to say that I want to hold on to an extra 1 or 2 percent of my income instead of preventing needless deaths because people can't afford health insurance. Besides which, we use a marginal tax rate, marginal . So raising the rate doesn't prevent someone from making more money. It just means you won't get as high a percentage on the last dollar you make, for the first $200,000 or $250,000 if you file jointly, you are still paying those lower rates.
Explain why socialism is bad and maybe I'll agree with it, but to just use the word is to buy into the sort of automatic, knee-jerk fear that swallowed our country during McCarthyism, when just being a communist made you evil. Too many people in this country use those words without understanding them at all and then irrationally fear them.
Finally, "All men are created equal" is not a socialist statement, it is a statement of egalitarianism, or more simply that all men should be treated the same by the law. It has nothing to do with economic programs of redistribution.
Also, I'm Erin's boyfriend, as an FYI.
Even if Obama's plan is to just give all children health insurance coverage, general health insurance coverage for everyone isn't far behind. And you know, health insurance is a privilege, not a right. If everyone gets it, whether they work or not, then people realize that they can be lazy and totally take advantage of the government because no matter what they will be taken care of. Which then puts more of a tax upon the people who actually will work to earn their keep, and puts more of a strain on all those in the medical field (I am not going to take the time to explain that, but perhaps I will on my own blog one day...but trust me, it would, it's strained enough as it is right now)
Look at the welfare system in this country. There are so many people in this country begging their doctors to declare them to be disabled, whether they really are or not, because they can get that much more of a check from the country and they can sit around and do nothing...even though they are perfectly able to do SOME sort of work. There is a lot to be said for working and earning the money to pay for things like health insurance, car insurance, fire, flood, homeowner, rental, whathaveyou insurance. There are many people in this country living off of the welfare system when they could actually work for themselves and be independent...you lose a great deal of freedom when you depend upon your country and your government and all the other people paying taxes for your welfare...and it's sad to say that there are plenty of people willing to lose that freedom. They can't take a job where they make a certain amount of money because then they would have to fend for themselves and wouldn't get a check from the government, they are required to live within certain standards...
...sorry...yeah, that's all for now...
Being healthy is not a privilege and if you honestly think that encouraging a class of sick people who can't afford to pay for their own health care is good I'm not sure how to ever change your mind.
That's an incredibly cynical view of humanity and I'm sorry you feel that way. I'd love to see your proof about how many people take welfare just because and not because they need it. Seriously, let's see that, because until you show me I'm going to go ahead and say you are just regurgitating talking points from ultra conservatives who believe that they have no responsibility to prevent needless deaths. This site should counter most of the fallacious arguments about how universal health care would doom our medical industry. Again, I'd like to see some sort of evidence beyond fear mongering about how worthless the poor are and how they are all really just out to scam us.
Well put Cheyenne. You said you don't think Obama is evil, but I think he is. Other than that, we are in complete agreement.
While I'm at it, I guess I'll comment here too. Men are created equal but we are not the same. Two different things there.
All I have to say is no thank you again to gov't run health care. Have you been to the Health Department and tried to get anything accomplished in a timely or efficient manner? Or could I add any government agency? I know Obama's plan is for children only, whatever. So, it's like Medicaid for every child. So, the government sets the rate (a very low rate) that they will pay and then the doctor/medical facility has to write-off the rest. Therefore, making them increase their prices, making private insurance cover more or private insurance to increase our co-pays or deductibles or premiums or all.
Socialism isn't inherently evil or bad, but show me where it has worked or even been remotely successful? It would be wonderful if there were no poor and everyone had sufficient for their needs. It's great in theory, but a by-product is no progression for the society. How do I progress when I have no motivation? Regardless of what effort I put in, I always get the same reward? Unfortunately, we as humans are flawed and a bit selfish that's the reality.
More I could say on the health care issue and people that may or may not take advantage of something that's free and how large their "need" really is, but I'll just end now.
My vote is for less government involvement.
Sara -
I can totally see your point on not wanting the government involved. However - it's so funny - while you worry that government sponsored insurance would increase prices to private payers, I think it would force a decrease in price by encouraging competition. You know, sort of like the ABC store. LOL I mean, everyone knows that the liquor is cheaper at the ABC store, even though it's the same stuff you can get elsewhere, BUT sometimes, if you want something special, you gotta go to the independent stores for that.
I know that probably seems like a crazy example, but it's the best one I can think of to illustrate my point.
I think in my mind, I see National Health care as NOT being like Medicaid...I mean, it would be for all children, not just children of "indigent" persons, and therefore there would be more of a drive by the nation to keep it up to par, if that makes sense. PLUS - Speaking as a person who pays privately for insurance, OH MY GOD - My insurance is SO FREAKING EXPENSIVE compared to what other people have to pay, and to the point where we're going to have to decide what coverage we can keep or not when Lilah is born. I mean, my "maternity" coverage is really a savings account where I only get $4000.00 towards anything related to pregnancy and delivery. THAT IS IT. The only upside is that I get the repriced amounts (which is across the board, not just for Medicaid/Medicare - and don't get me started on why the hell the price of a procedure isn't just the price of a procedure period. I don't get that at all), but it costs me an extra 110 a month on top of the $380 we already pay to have a THREE THOUSAND DOLLAR deductible...I mean...and we'll have to add ANOTHER $110 for Lilah when she's born, making us pay out of our monthly income over $500 just for insurance we may or may not need for the year.
I think - in general - Insurance is broken (like much of government) and needs to be fixed. People should be able to afford health care and no one should ever have to sell a house because they end up with cancer or anything else. I mean, it's far more complicated than I can type here, but I should call you so we can chat anyway!! :-D
Lots of good points, guys, and well stated. But, Devon, I'm not sure why you think my post was anything but a general observation of socialism. My goal was to generally define socialism (which is admittedly difficult to do) and all my information came from PSC 101, meaning a novice should know it. Nor did I say I thought Obama was going too far with socialism, he's not even a socialist. In fact, I gave no opinion on it, except at the very end when I said I was more conservative than he. And to the general reader: move to Tuscaloosa and drive down West Side. You'll see tons of people who take welfare when they don't actually need it. It's something my husband deals with a lot as he tries to offer financial help to members of our church. I think that opinions on that topic come from different life experiences. Also, Elizabeth works in a doctor's office. The statements you call cynical are, indeed, very much factual in our neck of the woods.
If y'all want me to argue for or against socialism (and I can do either, I'm a debater), that would take up a lot of posts. A discussion on the pros and cons of an egalitarian society, whether politically, socially, economically or humanitarily (is that even the right tense?) is not my intent. Again, I merely set out to generally define socialism so that when the average voter hears "Obama is a socialist" in the news, they will know that, in fact, he is not.
Now, anyone else who leaves a comment, I urge you to carefully read my post and practice that reader's comprehension that our teachers tried so tirelessly to teach us in grade school.
Well I can't speak to anyone's personal experience, and it's very possible I'm wrong about those issues, however, if I can practice a little of that reading comprehension.
"Does he get a little too inclined to share for my comfort? Yes."
and the closest thing to a definition of socialism I can find is
"Also, education, welfare, medicaid, etc., are forms of state control of capital."
And that's admittedly difficult to parse.
I do appreciate the fact that you don't claim Obama is a socialist, because he isn't. The general problem is that socialism is a bad word in the United States and thus people use it in broad terms when they want to paint a negative picture. In reality the definition of socialism as it applies to the United States is far too nuanced to really get into and, as you rightly pointed out, would probably surprise a lot of people.
Anyway, I still support universal health care and I believe we could find a properly run system, not necessarily one run solely by the government. I again encourage you to go to this link and read about the health care systems in those countries. Maybe you will all still raise the same objections, but I think between those systems we can find something that will work and work well for the U.S.
Perhaps, then, it would be better to say that this post is really more of a "Why Obama is not a socialist."
Sorry for not getting back onto here sooner.
I wish I could show you the facts that I know to be true, but due to HIPAA I won't. But yeah, work in the front office for a doctors office. You will see the proof first hand.
And just to put the record straight, I don't think ALL of the poor people out there are out to scam us. There are good honest people out there. I believe that people hit hard times, which is why I believe in the 'saving for a rainy day' philosophy...and if that runs out before they are able to get back on their feet, family, friends, or whoever should help them out if they can (and I know not everyone may agree on that, that is 'the perfect world according to Elizabeth').
And yes, being healthy is a privilege. We are lucky if we are even born healthy. We are born into a world with all sorts of health problems. Would I love it if everyone was healthy, of course, but that is not the world we live in.
Health insurance is a privilege that we have today in this world. Health insurance is a very new thing. Before we had it, we had to fend for ourselves. Those who were responsible for your care (parents, spouse, and/or children depending on what stage of life you are in), if you really couldn't take care of yourself, stepped up to the plate.
And then 'insurance' was created. Fabulous, wonderful thing for the most part. No, not a perfect thing, but nothing in this world is in my opinion. I know, I worked for a health insurance company for a year, and I saw both the good and the horribleness of health insurance.
But you had to earn money to pay for it for yourself and your family. Yes, it's expensive, depending on what plan you want to have, whether the company you work for has a group plan, etc., but you pay for it for yourself.
No, I don't believe that the government is responsible for my health. I am. I do respect though that other people feel differently on these things. I have had many good conversations with a few of the doctors that I work for who are on both sides of this argument on whether a universal health plan would work or not...so I am not an expert, but I am aware of the arguments for and againt it, including a good deal of what is on that website.
I don't really like john mccain, but there are several reasons i cannot vote for obama. i was recently sent an email from my uncle which sums up my feelings to a "T". http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.asp
it is about hunltey browns response to a friend asking him to vote for obama, and his response is at the link above, too long to type here.
i know the economy is a BIG issue right now, but looking at the candidates and their values and what things that they have voted for or against, i think is a much more important thing to do.
one of the most important ones to me is the partial abortion law. i personally don't agree with abortion as a birth control, but for medical risks to the mother (which almost always can be figured out in the first trimester
and personal choice in cases of rape or incest (which usually involves rape anyways).
but just so everyone is clear, partial abortion happens this way (don't read if you're easily nauseated)
The 5 steps to partial abortion:
1.Guided by ultra sound, the abortion dr grabs the baby's leg with forceps (Remember, this is a LIVE baby)
2.the baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal
3. the dr delivers the baby's entire body EXCEPT for the head
4. the abortion dr then jams scissors in to the baby's skull, the scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5.the scissors are then removed and a suction catheter is inserted and then the baby's brain is sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. the dead baby is then removed.
now, there really is NO reason for a partial abortion, and obama voted no to ban partial abortions. either you're for it or against it... i can't understand how ethically anyone can support that???!!!
now, i'm not a good debater, but i really do try to understand and as far as i can tell, my gut is saying "Beware!"
okay, so i was just re-reading my comment and realized it sounded quite uhm, whats the word... uh, still can't think of it, but anywas i wanted to apologize, my thoughts weren't clearly explained. i was typing in the midst of after-halloween chaos (3 candy deprived children under 4... mean mommy mean mommy;)
anyways, the point i was trying to make was that i think we should look at the person's values, what they have already accomplished and who they associate with rather than what they "say" they will do. yes, that sounds better.
Post a Comment