Of socialism, racism, and honest discussion

Hi imperfect parent,

Sorry about the delay in getting this posted. I put all the information at this post: http://www.blogher.com/charitable-giving-what-stud... ( http://www.blogher.com/charitable-giving-what-stud... )

The tables totally did not come out, so I'm not sure what to do about that, as they are sort of vital to the argument. Maybe I can get my husband to create a PDF and upload it. At any rate, the discussion is still good...

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Lack of government regulation and circumvention of rules via new and unregulated products played a huge role in this.

Last I knew, this plan was implemented by a conservative adminstration tht begged Congress to go along. And in large part, I agree with the move.

As one who adjudicates unemployment compensation claims, I really do not relish seeing a double digit unemployment rate, but so too for do I not wish to for very humane reasons. We had to do something to correct the mess made via private industry.

 Long term, the government should step out once it can recover its funding, but it needs to be involved with updated regulation. 

We keep hearing about how the right detests big government, but history shows government oversight is essential.  

nelle ( http://refractivethoughts.org/ )

/

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

I couldn't agree more-it seems no matter what your stance is AGAINST Obama or liberalism these days, it is always turned around as some type of race issue, or sex issue, or anything other than the issue it actually is. Unfortunately, it seems there is no room in this election to disagree with the Obama camp or you will be penalized ( http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/obama-camp... ). Not only will they stop talking to you, but clearly, if you bring up any issue they don't want to discuss-or maybe more to the point-that the media doesn't want you to discuss-you will be shredded ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBR... ) by them. These are just the two most recent examples. Throughout this election cycle, those on the left seem to want to stop any question, discussion, or investigation of anything that might be important to those who DISAGREE. All questioning is dismissed as uninformed, ridiculous, racist, silly, or "going too far" as it relates to the Democratic candidate. This is America, I am allowed to question anything I want, I am allowed to have an opinion, I am allowed to think or feel anything-and I should be allowed to do all of those things without being put into some category that is not even appropriate. Moreover, I should have a media outlet that will actually report all sides of the issues concerning points I am interested in. This way I can make up my OWN mind. Maybe you don't care about the same things I care about-that's fine, it's your right in this country-but that is no excuse to simply dismiss me on some false claim of racism and tell me to accept an OPINION because Obama or the media said so. Even in these comments, I feel many want to dismiss the entire post because somehow the definitions of Socialism and “fault” in the mortgage crisis have become more important discussion points than the original subject-that honest discussion can’t be had without distraction from the issue based on some off subject claim.

To my way of reading, this was the over-all point of the article, and I agree that it is a sad day in America when one is vilified simply for investigating or questioning actions, associations, and political stances on issues that concern all of us.

Why is it that that a mere mention of "Nazi" always degenerates the discussion on a wild tangent?  I have to agree with Dana, the Nazis are vivid reminders of modern socialism - that's what Nazi is short for: NAtionalsoZIalistische .  I think we would all do well to remember that history and denying that socialism in the US could never morph into the same thing is a fallacy.

What I also find disturbing in these comments is NO mention of what socialism truly means = BIG government running "everything".  As a conservative,  I have no problem paying taxes and even having a large welfare state to help other citizens in need.  Most conservatives I know agree.  What we vehemently detest about socialism though is how the government grows as a result.  The recent "bailout" is  prime example of economic socialism but I fear this is only a start if the Democrats have their way (cotrolling Congress and the White House).

European-style socialism will not work in the USA.  It is counter to living the American Dream.  Having spent time in countries like the UK, Germany, France, and Belgium which are far more socialist than we are (but what I see many liberals view as ideal) I have seen first hand what a "nanny state" does to its citizens.  The government runs or regulates most everything and as a price tax rates are typically close to 50% FOR EVERYONE.  That is why their economies lag behind ours.  Trust me, it is no Utopia and given our very different culture, again, it would never work here.

A government powerful enough to provide everything you need is also powerful enough to take everything you have.

Nordette, you're my hero. Next time I see this topic, and the ugly innuendo, I'm just going to link you.

Whoa, dude! Like, I so totally did not get that.
Thanks for the chuckle, Erin.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

I might agree that there is a vast difference between janitors and surgeons, but I'm not buying your point that teachers and nurses should make less than attorneys and CEOs because of the time and effort it takes to enter each of those professions.  A teacher usually needs to go through two to three years of post-graduate work and pass a test for licensing or certification - kind of like a lawyer goes to law school and has to pass the bar.  And frankly, I think the people who are responsible for giving the future lawyers, doctors, CEOs, and janitors a solid primary education are worth their weight in gold.  Lastly, if your argument were correct, public defenders and other lawyers who go into public service would be paid the same as other types of lawyers - after all, they had to go through the same same time and effort to become lawyers.  Perception about the value of the work might not be the only factor when it comes to what kinds of salaries various professions command, but it absolutely plays a role.

--Liz

I blog about creating a life worth living at:  inventingmylife.blogspot.com ( http://www.inventingmylife.blogspot.com/ )

Dana,

I posted ( http://www.blogher.com/what-media-are-missing-abou... ) on this subject a few weeks ago: 

[C]onservative pundits Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are pushing bogus
claims that the subprime mortgage crisis happened because, as one
headline on Coulter's column put it ( http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/09/... ), "They gave your mortgage to a less-qualified minority." Actually, Michelle Malkin said ( http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008... ) that "illegal immigrants" were to blame. Classic scapegoating.

Let's be clear: as the Center for American Progress notes ( http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/bla... ), most of the consumers affected by the subprime mortgage crisis are white.  However, last October, [law professor and banking expert Emma] Coleman Jordan noted ( http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2007/10/race_and... ):

 African American borrowers have been especially hard hit. Recent studies from New York University researchers ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/nyregion/15subpr... ), pro consumer non profits such as Acorn ( http://acorn.org/index.php?id=8618&tx_ttnews%5... ) and the Center for Responsible Lending ( http://www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/foreclosure... )and the NYT analyses of mortgage data ( http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/subpr... )show that even at higher income levels, black borrowers throughout the country were far more likely than white borrowers with similar incomes and mortgage amounts to receive a subprime loan.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

If you believe in any taxes, at all, for any reason...you're a socialist? I mean really...taxes=socialism.

Guess so.

I guess we're all socialist. Sweet.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

...such as a mortgage, they are responsible for honoring it. And honestly, some of the mortgage products that people signed up for are never, ever a good idea.

I'm still waiting, though, for someone to provide a specific, coherent explanation of how anti-redlining requirements on banks included in the CRA of 1977 caused the mortgage crisis of 2008, after years and years went by when the people who supported the CRA had cause to lament that it was not being enforced, and that many non-depository institutions had gotten into mortgage lending and were not subject to its provisions.

Did the current president suddenly start demanding accountability from banks under the CRA?

I don't think the fact that it was passed in 1977 is irrelevant unless someone can explain to me why NOW was when all the chickens came home to roost. Why weren't banks failing left and right until now?

If you're actually talking about the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 as a culprit (also allowed Enron, by the way), then that's a bipartisan blame game, since Phil Gramm created it and Clinton signed it into law as part of an omnibus spending bill.

Dana, believe it or not I wrote an even longer response to your claim that Republicans never said minorities were to blame for the mortgage crisis. I had links, quotes, the whole nine yards, but then I deleted it.

I realized that if you would actually make such a claim within the frame of wanting "honest" discussion about racism with a "LOL" behind it as though it's improbable Republicans would say such a thing, then there's nothing else I can say that wouldn't be a waste of my time and energy, especially since the post I linked to in my earlier comment went to my personal blog in which I said clearly that I've heard a conservative make the claim on television (and read of more doing so). Therefore, I submit this response to any readers who is open to consider how the language used for the mortgage crisis by some in the right wing has been styled to spark racist conclusions.

I realize that all conservatives are not Republican but a hell of a lot of conservatives are Republican. I wish I could take a poll here now and find out how many people reading this post think Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Ronald D. Utt are Republicans pushing Republican talking points? In the case of Utt, actually creating the frame of a talking point. The perception comes honestly that Republicans approve certain types of propaganda because they lavish love on their Republican supporters who push it and Republican candidates regurgitate the same in coded langauge such as the CRA forced banks to fill "certain percentages" of loans to "certain" lenders.

I see prominent people who are conservatives and who proudly support the Republican ticket and at least one person I can think of who's running for office as a Republican who have said pressure to be fair to minorities created the mortgage crisis or banks were "forced" to lend money to minorities that couldn't afford homes which led to the mortgage crisis. Listeners on both sides interpreted their commentary or statements to be political rhetoric crafted to lead listeners to conclude that minorites are to blame for the mortgage crisis. It's an emotional leap that some whites who are stressed about money would be willing to make. and if said stressed-out white people didn't make the leap quickly enough, at least one "Republican" bulldog has written an article to spell it out for them entitled "They Gave Your Mortgage to a Less Qualified Minority."

You don't have to be a debate captain to follow this spin on the mortgage crisis. It's the same kind of logic that says "American culture's degraded because we were forced to integrate," and leads some people to conclude blacks and "race mixing" are the cause of American culture degrading.

Or, here's the other similar claim. "We were forced to hire minorities under Affirmative Action. Very few minorities are qualified to fill our positions (because by and large, you know, they're shiftless and lazy) so we had to hire unqualified people. Having to hire minorities led to a decline in our quality." People hear this and conclude minorities are the reason we have bad quality, which is exactly what the people who said it want others to conclude just as the people who frame the mortgage crisis in terms of we were forced to lend to minorities want listeners to blame blacks and Latinos for the economic crisis.

I'm weary of conservatives and members of the Republican party treating the rest of us like we're misreading what they're saying when they say the same old things over and over again. They've been using this tactic for decades. It even has a name, "the southern strategy." But Republican politicans know this type of bait ( http://www.blogher.com/political-rhetoric-race-and... ) hooks fish in other parts of the nation as well, possibly the parts that Palin declares, with nationalistic fervor, "pro-America ( http://www.blogher.com/where-are-non-pro-american-... )."

For the record, when I've written about the mortgage issue in the past, I haven't blamed Republicans for the mortgage meltdown, but I did link to an article that showed their big fat thumbs in the pie ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/10/ap-reports-gop... ) because I resent the bigoted, incendiary rhetoric conservatives and Republicans have been using to deflect from their own sins.

I think there's enough blame to go around on our financial crisis which is why I deplore the spin on the crisis that promotes banks claiming they were forced to lend money to insolvent "minority" borrowers when that isn't the case at all. The banks were out to make a buck and didn't mind doing so through risky loan products placed on the backs of hard working mothers and families who wanted desperately to own a home.

No reasonable person will argue that taking personal responsibility is an undesirable goal but it seems Republicans shun the argument for corporate responsibility too often.

(post updated to correct typos, but I'm sure there are more ... my eyes hurt) 

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

of being a socialist more times than I can remember. Such is life when debating politics.

For the record, I'm no socialist.

While socialism generally refers to an economic configuration and approach, in reality any grouping for some common purpose is a form of socialism - society structured in such a way as to provide a better outcome than that achievable by each individual working alone.

I do not see racism in socialist accusations; I see politics at work, because the right occasionally calls the left out as socialist, just as the left tends to call out the right as fascist.

As societal creatures, we well embrace common purpose as an integral part of our lives.

Those who generally accuse me of socialism - because I am decidedly liberal - generally argue for free market forces with little regulation. Over the last two months, we have seen bedrock free market forces cry out for
government intervention. Our government has in effect partially nationalised our banking system, in order to save us from ourselves.

I do not favour long term government ownership - when loss can be fully recover, sell and step out. Remaining should be regulation - something
put in place due to past lessons, but cast aside when great profits appeared attainable. We've relearned the lessons, we've relearned why regulation and oversight are key elements of government.

Tax rates need be set in such a way they do not squelch economic activity or creation, but also adequately fund the government. One element that is often overlooked is the central role of social stability in creating a viable business environment. When people decry progressive tax rates and call for a flat one, they usually fail to factor in the ncessary cost of living life and the huge benefits provided to more wealthy folk through social stability. When this is factored in, flat rates skew markedly regressive.

Wealth is of the mind, it exists largely on paper. If one person has a 1 million net worth, it is so because there are a sufficient number in society who agree.When social instability sets in, depending on severity, this wealth can dry up faster than you can ponder what to do next.

Setting aside the humanitarian element, this makes social programmes such as social security essential, putting floors under people so they cannot fall too far such that social instability might arise.

Lastly, social security is a social insurance programme, which is why it makes no sense to privatise any element of it.

nelle ( http://refractivethoughts.org/ )

/

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

More power to groups that endorse, but I wouldn't necessarily use this as a way of implying anything about Obama, unless you want to also imply that McCain supports the KKK's agenda ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=138_1224533701 ).

As for the current economic crises, the blaming the poor game was seriously debunked ( http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=138_1224533701 ) by more than one source. The primary cause of the economic failure was removal of regulations that required banks and other lenders to maintain a level of cash proportionate to the amount of debt they held.

As for defaulting on mortgages, most defaults are on higher income homes. Most occur because of job loss, or other change in circumstance that made it difficult to pay the mortgage payments. Pair this with the housing market shifting downward, the people couldn't sell their homes for enough to pay off the mortgage. Neither could the banks, who are now stuck with a lot of overpriced homes that won't sell.

Government spending? Who put us in Iraq unnecessarily? Who recommended a $700 billion bail out? Who took a country that was running with a surplus and ran it into the ground? Seems to me, a Republican was in charge during all of this.

Make of this what you will, but to correct one of my own assumptions that no socialist groups, et al., have claimed Obama. I am just a messenger ...

Democratic Socialists of America endorsement ( http://www.dsausa.org/dsapac/Election%20closer%20t... )

CPUSA support ( http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/975/1/147... )

@skye Er, it hasn't just been a problem. People have been trying to stop this hot mess for years and years and years. That it was passed in '77 is quite irrelevant.

Republicans haven't said that minorities are at fault for this, they've said, lol, that liberals are at fault. I question the motivation of a party that would allow for such regulations and then steps back and does nothing but profit as these people - not just minorities - watch the banks foreclose on their dreams. 

It comes back to personal responsibility: don't bite off more than you can chew. To say that it's a "blame the victim" game purposefully ignores the responsibility that loan recipients have. If I purchase a car which has payments I can't afford and I default, whose fault is it? Not the dealership, not the bank, but me for taking on a financial burden that I can't support. We will continue to have this problem unless everyone in this country who hasn't already learns to live within their means.

Of course, it doesn't make it any easier when we have a government that doesn't and a congress that jacked up spending: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/por-pelosi-obama-reid...

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

Thank you for bringing that up, Skye. "The liberals made them do it" explanation for the mortgage crisis is more Republican propganda floated on the morgage meltdown. I addressed it in part at my own blog in the post AP Reports GOP Firm Got $2M from Freddie Mac to Stop Regulation. ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/10/ap-reports-gop... )

Not only do Republicans blame liberals but also say minorities are at fault for the bank failures, a divisive and spurious accusation from the blame-the-victim toolbox.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ). At BlogHer recently, America's Dark Night of Soul ( http://www.blogher.com/americas-dark-night-soul-il... ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

But can someone please explain to me the assertion I keep seeing thrown around, including in Dana's post, that mortgage companies were somehow required to make these bad loans? Seriously, people, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 passed in, um, 1977. My math says that's 30 years ago. It just suddenly became a problem? Even the Clinton administration's 1995 revisions to the CRA did not suddenly force all the banks in America to lend to people with no stable income or credit history.

And it only applied to about half of the banks making the bad loans, so how exactly is it the liberals' fault that private companies made a ton of really, really bad decicions?

You're probably shocked because you missed the point I was making.

First
of all, I'm not saying equal pay for a janitor and a doctor. I'm all
for the doctor making a good deal of money considering how much they
had to invest in their job. What I am saying is that many professions
necessary for society are not necessarily paid living wages. By living
wages I mean being able to have a decent home (not rich, or fancy, or
even owned), being able to eat healthily, have access to educational
opportunities based on ability, not wealth or who you know, and have good, decent medical care. Oh, and a little
extra to put away for retirement, maybe a little trip now and again. A
few modest treats. 

These, to me, are basic rights. Yet many
professions necessary to the well being of society are not paid the
income to meet these modest needs. I find it obscene when a janitor
for a company can barely feed his or her kids, much less buy coats for
them in winter, when the CEO makes 16 million a year. And, from the recent Wall Street crises, the janitor
probably does a better job.

You're assuming that all a person
needs to do is work hard and they'll be rich, which that's not only not
happening, it isn't necessarily a goal, either. Earlier someone
mentioned about being a teacher, and how success can be measure by
something other than being wealthy. Comendable and an attitude I would
like to see in a teacher. On the other hand, though, we do NOT pay our
teachers enough. 

History has shown that as a society's wealth become concentrated more and more in the hands of a few, the society becomes increasingly chaotic, and fragmented. Even then, I would have less problem with this if it weren't for the fact that so many of the wealth holders increase their wealth at the expense of the rest of us. Their companies take tax breaks from Congress, and then offshore jobs to the lowest bidder -- many times in places with horrid working conditions. 

So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not going to follow the Republican/Libertarian propaganda that the American way is for the average Joe to buck up, shut up, and do his job, while the corporate wealthy rape the people and the land for all of their worth.  After all, they too, someday, can join in the pillaging.

"Now, you might argue that it's people's fault for not making millions,
but where would society be without our teachers, police, fire,
janitors, nurses, etc who make middle or lower incomes? Society either
has to pay people much higher incomes for necessary work, or inact a
tax system that taxes fairly, and not based on dollar amounts."

I am just shocked that there are people in this country that actually believe the government should "even things out" when it comes to what professions are paid. A doctor makes more money than a janitor because it requires extensive education, training and skill. Because of the effort and intelligence required to become a doctor, fewer people actually become doctors which creates a greater demand for doctors. The greater demand also raises salary.

A janitor can make more money by:

     1.) Going back to school and change to a profession that pays more

     2.) Hoping for a janitor shortage in their area

     3.) Hoping the goverment decides to require companies to pay janitors more

     4.) Hoping the government taxes other people more and gives it to janitors 

Only one of these four things actually requires the janitor to do anything. Janitors, teachers, nurses, etc. make less money not because this country, or life for that matter is unfair, but because of sound, logical reasons. It has nothing to do with the perception that their work is valued less, it is because the effort to become a nurse or a teacher is less than that of a surgeon, attorney or CEO. 

I also wonder why so many people are offended by the fact that such a small percentage of people own such a large percentage of the wealth in this country. Is it not true that someone created that wealth? Shouldn't the person who created it have sole control of it? Just as we wouldn't want anyone coming into our homes and dictating how we raise our children, we surely, don't want someone dictating what happens to our wealth. Wealth has already trickled through the tax system. If we earn more money from our wealth, we pay taxes on those earnings. To tax a person more because they have saved more "wealth" is the same as taxing money that has already been taxed. Doing so will penalize people who decide to save their money.

We complain because the rich are getting richer. I am sure someone has statistics proving that, but there are also new people every year who are entering that "rich" bracket of earnings or wealth for the first time. I think that is something to be proud of and work toward. Demonizing people for working hard, creating new things, or just being lucky only makes those people who struggle hate them more. Life is hard and sometimes we are thrown into situations (either by our own hand or that of another) that make us struggle financially. I have been there and done that. It made my husband and I get out of our comfort zone, change things and work hard to improve our situation. We didn't make excuses or wait for someone to do it for us. 

Do you have a source for this statistic you keep throwing out? Not necessarily doubting you, just curious as to what the actual breakdown is.

And why is the argument always "more money" and rarely "less spending"? Let's hold Washington completely responsible for how they spend our dollars before offering to give them more.

It was Professor Kim who spoke of Zionism and Neil's response was to her. Scroll back through the comments to find the comment that sparked Neil's.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

This post violated Godwin's Law from the get-go.  It is very difficult to take anyone seriously when they have "automatically" lost by comparing someone to Nazis.  This is like watching Usenet gone bad!

Usually, on women's forums, it is breastfeeding threads / posts that degenerate faster than this.  But, really, anyone with any Internet savvy knows that Godwin's Law prevents anything but an actual historical discussion of the Nazis while referencing Nazis from being taken seriously!

MLO / Melissa

This was extremely confusing as posts go. here's my take on some of it.

The wealth that has been distributed via corporate welfare to corporations via tax incentives and subsidies (it's almost 200 billion a year now isn't it), is worrisome because it comes with no codicil which requires the corporations to actually give back in terms of employment or economic development. Partly because of this of this the jobs are gone, yet the corporations still benefit to the tune of billions a year, while the middle class is not benefiting from the billions of dollars their government gives to corporations every year. The corporations get these subsidies without having to provide jobs or economic stimulus of any kind. The middle class as a matter of fact is shrinking considerably because of this. We need a healthy stable middle class to have the kind of nation we have, for a sound economic nation, for political transitions, and for development.

The privatization of public services is also a concern I have, it is just more corporatization.

If redistributing the wealth will help increase the middle class I'm all for it. From what I've read Obama's plan has the best chance of doing that.

It was also important for me to notice that a large number of the economist who support McCain are older non practicing or academics, and the large number who support Obama tend to be applied economists, actively working,using economic theory in the real world every day.

There is a large difference in talking about policy with socialist tendencies and hearing people screech terms out like "socialist" when talking about any given politician.

Any good socialist will tell you Obama is a conventional bourgeois politician.

 There is really no discussionof racism, or foreign policy in the post, the socialism part made absoltely no sense at all. I more or less responded to the commets.

cooper

I don't know how teachers like that sleep at night thinking about all of the traumatized children left in their fascist wake.

YES WE CANDY! --Come trick-or-treat with Sarah and John at the GOP Mansion! ( http://www.ontherocksdebspooky.blogspot.com/ )

Deb
www.debontherocks.com ( http://www.debontherocks.com/ )blog
www.3smartgirlz.c

I've worked at nonprofit organizations for ten years. I understand the need for dollars all too well. And I understand that if you yank government support, charity will not even come close to making up the difference. The biggest supporter of community development work - we helped create child care centers, affordable housing, and schools in low income communities - was the government. I agree that it doesn't matter why people donate - but if they only donate to Harvard, the local hospital, their church, and the opera, which is EXACTLY where the bulk of contributions go, then we have a very large problem in getting basic services and meeting various needs that, whether popular or not, have to be met.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

"When you say “socialism,” several things come to mind. The first are
the most famous socialists of them all, Germany’s National Socialist
party of yore, the goose-stepping Nazis who carved a deep wound into
the fleshy world psyche. The second is Mussolini. I also think of the
current Spanish government."

 So, I think you might want to re-think this statement. As you can probably find out relatively easily, one of the largest groups that fought the nazis and mussolini in Europe were the socialist parties, who helped run many of the largest underground resistance movements across Europe: one of the reasons why so many of them were voted into power in France, the UK, and Italy after the war. In particular, the socialists fought Franco in Spain when most of the other political groupings were supporting them. They lost, and Franco remained in power until the seventies, as the last remaining fascist dictator. Socialists fought Franco then, and helped defend democracy in Spain when it was threatened by a fascist military coup in 1981.

If I might translate your first sentence into equivalent terms that match groups you may be more familiar with:

 "When I think of 'American', several  things come to mind. The first are the most famous Americans of all, the American Ku Klux Klan.The second is the American Nazi Party. And, of course, I think of the current American administration."

 What you said is as confused and as inflammatory as that.

 Just to re-emphasise here: people who are proud to wear the title socialist were imprisoned, tortured and died fighting the people you lump with them, many of them in the decade before the US involved itself in that fight against fascism.

 I describe myself as a libertarian, but as a European and a descendant of those who fought alongside your relatives under the banner of socialismt for democracy against the fascists, I am genuinely upset that you should conflate these two groups -- either out of ignorance, or a clumsy attempt to paint your political opponents as nazis.

Have you ever spoken to a voter on the Spanish left, or a Spaniard at all about their political world? Do you know how insulting what you have written is

Thank God there are some in the American political system who are willing to learn about everyone, even those who they believe to be their deepest opponents.

Wow, you're really going to rag on Bill Gates who, unlike industry builders before him, is donating something like 95% of his fortune to charity? I don't think he needs your lecture on "economic impact".

Charities spend DOLLARS not percentages. Yes, sacrifice is noble, but at the end of the day it doesn't pay the bills. Does it really matter if someone who cuts a $100,000 check to Red Cross is just doing it to look good, or for a tax deduction? I guarantee the charity isn't grilling donors about their motives.

The real specious argument here is that having the government determine what the threshold is for being financially "successful" and taxing certain groups of citizens whatever they want at whim is somehow "fair". The 14th amendment -- that's "fair".

I didn't see where you use Zionism, Dana but as I say, could just be me.  It's a good thing though because after reading about how a suburban St. Louis public middle school group of 6th graders thought that Hit A Jew Day was acceptable for Spirit Week and the educators don't think that's a hate crime or has anything to do with prejudice, and a known-terrorist, age 21, stabbed an 86 year old man to death in Jerusalem?  Well - the last word I'm interested in parsing right now is Zionism.

I have to say, I do not think of any of those things that you say you think of when you hear the S word (hope that keeps it moderation safe).  Not one. My background is in political theory and sociology, law and social work.  So I'm not sure what accounts for these differences but there you are.

I'm not sure what it is you hoped to discuss via this thread.  In the end, you say you want to talk about taxes and foreign policy and health care.

Is there a reason why you didn't just do that?

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

FWIW, when I referred to zionism in the 1920s, I was thinking about people like Golda Meir, who was very active in the Labor Zionist Youth Movement as a young woman, now known as Habonim ( http://www.habonimdror.org/ ). Having lived and worked with Habonim members for a number of years, I understood that many Labor Zionists who were in the US also supported other "progressive" causes, such as the right to form unions, suffrage, etc. No value judgment intended -- just a simple statement that socialism isn't one simple ideology. I apologize if anyone thought I meant any more than that.

By the way, I can't find the comment that referred to my use of the word Zionism, but it's interesting to note that it seems to brand me as a member of the "left." I've got some friends who will be really amused by that.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

Jennifer, I don't know why you are so hard on Dana after two posts.  I think she does have an understanding of politics, but she just went more for the gut than a reasoned argument, with clear-cut evidence.  Unfortunately, this is common in political discourse today, especially in columns like this - and the right and the left are both guilty of manipulating words for their own benefit.

For example, here's a rebuttal/comment to Dana's post written by Km Pearson, a BlogHer contributing editor:

Final, we've had a mixed economy since the 1930s, and "so-ci-al-iasm"
was never a monolith (the Fabian and Zionist influence on US politics
in the early 20th century are at least as important as the Marxists),
so we need to be much clearer in defining exactly what we are talking
about. 

What exactly is she referring to when she says "Zionist?"   Is she referring to Zionist thinkers in the early 20th Century?  Is she referring to the years before 1948, with the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel?  Is Zionism a code word for "rich Jews?"  How powerful was this influence?   Is she saying that the establishment of Israel was because of Jewish influence?  Is it a good or bad influence?  Why does she use the word "Zionism" rather than "Jewish?"  Why was the Jewish community so unsuccessful in getting the Roosevelt administration to do more in Europe, rather than remaining isolationist?  

SHE needs to be much clearer in defining exactly what she is talking about.

No wonder why my aunt in Florida is worried about voting for Obama.  The left seems way more obsessed with the "power" of the Zionists, which is very reminiscent of bad days from the past.

You might be able to make the argument that the Israel lobby is powerful NOW, but so what?  That's how business is done.  And it is is our country's own interest to support the country.  But that is another issue.

It is just WRONG to say that Zionism had more influence that socialism on U.S. politics.  Socialism helped inspire the unions, fare wages, the Great Society, and politicians such as Norman Thomas and even FDR.  If you want to talk about the influence of Jews on American society, their main influence isn't in Zionism, but socialism, bringing their Bunds and Workmen Circles to America when they immigrated at the turn of the Century.  Even those who escaped Europe to Palestine were socialists who started up kibbutzs and were interested in agriculture.  

Sorry about the rant, but I just wanted to show that the right AND the left both talk about politics without presenting us with any facts, hoping that using certain coded words will sway us.

I have to say, I've been thinking all day about commenting on this post, but I held back because I really couldn't figure out the main point the author was trying to make!  I read it two or three times, and I'm a reasonably intelligent and well-educated person, but it did seem to me like a bunch of different topics all thrown together without a cohesive structure.  But thanks to you, now I think I get it!

--Liz

I blog about creating a life worth living at:  inventingmylife.blogspot.com ( http://www.inventingmylife.blogspot.com/ )

That was impressive.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Interesting that you felt you needed to explain the post and comment thread back to the rest of us. I would have thought we could do this on our own, since we are all capable of critical thought.

Dana did not do a good job, as witnessed the fact that few commenters actually focused on her original "concern", which I'm deciphering to be that the discussion about Obama, socialism, and tax plans should occur, and that there's no racism to have this discussion. The fact that the comment thread did not follow this path is typically what happens when you invoke nazism in any discussion--which is why most writers know not to invoke the nazis, unless doing so is absolutely essential to the discussion.

Dana did not bring up a good argument against socialism, in support of applying socialism as a label to Obama's tax plan, or even an invitation for "socialists" to explain themselves. Where you derived that one is difficult for me to comprehend. Perhaps you're reading your own interests too strongly into the discussion. 

In addition, the fact that Dana conflated socialists with fascists, discredits any use of her interepretation of socialism as an argument against Duiguid. Basically discredits her further argument about applying socialism to anything Obama does--or frankly using the term.

She is providing an opinion to augment her argument, yes, but we're telling her that he premises of her opinion on which she bases her argument are in error, actually grossly in error, which tends to refute most of what she's saying. 

Frankly, this post reminds me of how Sarah Palin talks in interviews: a jumbled mess of terms and phrases, many of which are copied whosesale from others, pasted together with leaps of logic breath defying in their reach, and worrisome in lack of depth of understanding--all given with sublime confidence on the part of the writer (speaker) of the rightness of one's argument.  Therefore, as harsh as this may seem, I do not agree with your opinion that this essay was "well structured and balanced".

I don't know about others, but I would have been gentler with my comments if Dana did not introduce nazism into a discussion related to candidate for president of the US. Frankly, I saw this as a cheap trick, an original assumption I still stand by even with Dana's follow-up comment. 

Now, you of course may decide this comment is not worthwhile responding to. I will try to overcome my disappointment.

You rock!

Just sayin'.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

This would actually make a good separate post (hint, Suzanne).

Even a percentage wouldn't make a difference. Some organizations support a straight 10% tax across the board. 

But a person making 15,000 would then pay 1,500 in taxes, which could be enough to make the difference between eating healthily and just plain eating in a week. Someone like Mrs. McCain, who made 10 million last year actually paid 2.5 million in taxes -- yet I don't think it impacted on whether she could afford steak or not. 

To me, taxes are fairest when they are based on economic impact. 

Oh my god, I sound...social-stic! (Use of which hopefully cannot parse in any way like an erectile dysfunction medicine).

I think liberals and conservatives have very similar goals--just different ways to achieve them. Few would argue against the goals of prosperity, health care, and justice for all Americans. I believe the differences between us lie not in discussions of big or small government, s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m or capitalism, but in our view of the nature of human beings.

Neither group would argue that people aren't capable of good. The most popular liberal stance appears to be that people are essentially good (unselfish if you will) and if they are not, that education and good leadership, as one commenter stated, can change that. The Christian conservative stance on the nature of people, however, is that while we are capable of good, we also have a capacity for evil that cannot be overcome with any kind of legislation.

One commenter's discussion of what proportion of people are unselfish presupposes that selfishness is a discrete category. Christian conservatives believe that we have all exhibited selfishness and are all capable of being selfish in the future. The founders of this country held this view of human beings and thus created a system of government to protect its citizens from the greed and corruption that are inevitable in any form of government.

As a Christian conservative, I am puzzled by an inconsistency in the mainstream liberal viewpoint. (I realize that my viewpoint is also troubled by inconsistencies). If people are basically good, why do we need to force people to share their money with others? Won't they do this out of their inherently unselfish nature? Or can't we solve the problem by educating people about generosity rather than requiring it of them by law?

One thing that finally makes sense to me as I write is why conservatives are so often viewed as ignorant. If people's goodness is the result of good education and leadership, then obviously those who don't share your viewpoint haven't benefitted from either. Since I am a long-term product of the public school system, liberals should see me as evidence that the current political focus on improving the education system is more than warranted. 

In your own conclussions and heaven help actually saying...I may be wrong or thank you for helping me become more informed. 

"It's my second time at-bat over at Blogher ( http://www.blogher.com/socialism-racism-and-honest... ). My first post was a woolen mittens introduction; this is some serious meat and potatoes politicking. I am trusting those who are of a different political persuasion to be cool because there is nothing on this earth that annoys me more than

1. Drunk sorority girls
2. Hillbilly narrow-mindedness
3. People who freak out and lose their minds when a contrary political opinion is before them

Numbers two and three are sort of interchangeable, I realize that. Just don't be either of them. Personally, I think it's kind of bullsh*t that I have to wring my hands at how much crap I'll get when others speak freely with no repercussions." 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

I will enumerate the parts, purposes and actual controversial statements to make genuine criticism/disagreement (1) possible (2) worth a response.

 Part the First (In which Dana introduces the subject, and the conflict): The author remarks that she thinks of Nazis, Mussolini, Spain, and her teacher when someone uses the word "socialism." The list of people/groups has, in her mind, a common attribute: whiteness. Lewis Diuiguid has suggested that socialism, as it is being used today, in this political climate, is a racially loaded term. As such, we should suppose, we oughtn't use the word "socialist" in political debates, because it is actually a cloaked racial epithet. The suggestion is that when it is used the people who are influenced or convinced to worry about Obama-as-Socialist are really worried about Obama-as-Black. The author, by personal anecdote, disagrees. Further reasons for disagreement will be revealed later, but at the moment the single, introductory point is just that Diuguid is just intuitively wrong about what is brought to mind in those who are worried about socialism, and if he is wrong about what is brought to mind then he is also wrong that we cannot or should not use the word "socialist" in political debates, particularly those involving Obama.

Possible Disagreements/Conflicts: So, where might one look to disagree with the author in this introductory section? Although it is possible to argue that the author is wrong to think of Nazis, Mussolini, Spain, and her teacher when presented with the word "socialist", it is not possible to argue that she does not, in fact, think of those things. But the power of the anecdote is only deployed against the Diuguid claim that people worried about socialism think of black activists when presented with the term. So even the claim that she is wrong to think of the things she does think of is a weak one, in its consequence, and that assumes that it's something more than a red-herring anyway.

Interpretively it is possible to disagree with her, say, about what Diuguid really means or what his conclusions really are. It is also possible to continue Diuguid's point despite her anecdotal evidence to the contrary: even though she has no such racial thought-train, perhaps it is still the case that the majority of those worried about socialism do indeed have that thought-train. That's going to take a lot more work, though. And while the author is not really entitled to generalize her anecdote, the stronger burden here is to show that some large number of people worried about socialism are closetedly responding to the racial history of the term that Diuguid claims is attached to it.

It is also possible to disagree with the way she dispatches the weight of the historical association between socialists and black activists: Diuguid sees the historical association as a continuing one, and the author, relying on La Shawn Barber, sees the historical association as an historical one. There is no denying that socialists are historically linked to racially-based political groups. But where Diuguid takes this to mean that people today are bound to identify socialists with racially-based political groups, Barber and the author take it to mean that there is a fact about what socialist groups did, and not a fact about what people think, right now. So, here is a place to press.

Part the Second (In which Dana, having moved past the conflict, provides some definitions and analysis free of the weight of the original conflict): The author finally reveals, not what she thinks of, when she hears "socialism", but what she thinks that "socialism" means: "An economic system...redistribution of wealth and at a greater percentage." Assuming that she has cleared the way to actually use the term "socialist" in an essay about Obama without being charged with stirring a racial hornets' nest, she uses it to identify what it is about Obama that she thinks is socialist, in this economic sense. But she also remains conservative (not politically conservative, although she is that, but judgmentally conservative) about just tossing the "socialist" label at Obama and being done with it. Instead she notes that his policies are something other than what the radical, perhaps "true" socialists, would like to see, resembling instead European Socialism, which is a form of Capitalism.

Possible Disagreements/Conflicts: In this section what is on offer is a hand-waving at a definition of Socialism. It is possible to disagree with the definition, but hardly chartiable since the author does not herself flesh out what exactly she means beyond an economic system that generally redistributes wealth and does so at a "high" rate. So a disagreement about what "socialism" means will either have to be a disagreement about those very general claims (which are, I think, uncontroversial even among true socialists) or will have to presume to know what the fleshed-out version of Socialism the author has in mind looks like, if she even does have one. That, though, is an avenue that threatens straw-man after straw-man attack.

Also on offer is the assertion that Obama can be labeled a European Socialist, or at least something similar to a European Socialist. It is absolutely possible to disagree with this assertion, pointedly. But this would be a factual disagreement: do the policies resemble each other or not?

Part the Third (In which Dana makes general remarks about the consequences of Socialism): Although denying that Obama is an outright Socialist, the author has claimed that he is a sorta-Socialist, a European Socialist. And in this section she asserts some general disagreeable consequences of socialism: that easy as it is to advocate socialism here, socialism does not work because people are selfish. It does not work by being self-defeating: if it is a political system supporting the American Dream it ultimately undermines the American Dream by making it pointless to achieve the American Dream.

Possible Disagreements/Conflicts: Two paragraphs are never going to be sufficient to undermine Socialism. But the author has thrown down the gauntlet to Socialists here to explain how their system can work. It is possible to disagree with her about the claim that socialism fails because people are selfish (and I've already done that in this thread). It is also possible to disagree with her premise that the American Dream is what ought to be promoted. If that is false then it doesn't matter that socialism doesn't promote the American Dream. It is also possible to deny that socialism really is undermining of the American Dream.  All of these lines of attack are open.

However, this section is also sort of an aside. Remember, the general point of the essay is to show that talking about Obama as a socialist is fair to do; that is is not, as some would say, just an indirect racial attack and therefore a red herring. That the author also disagrees with socialism is certainly evident. But if too much is made of this point, whether socialism in general is good or bad, it overshadows the real debate on offer in the essay.

Part the Fourth: (In which Dana offers an aside about McCain and the mortgage crisis). The author also tangentially remarks that McCain might be branded a socialist, given this definition of socialism and his vote for the bailout. And further, that although he did vote for the bailout this vote was an emergency measure and not a policy measure, so maybe it is still possible to call Obama (who also voted for the bailout, but who perhaps did so out of policy rather than desperation) a socialist without sticking McCain with the label. There is also here included a polemic against the mortgage industry, and the regulations that permitted the crash, the regulations that were ignored that also permitted the crash, and a distinciton is made between "regulations" tout court and "regulations for oversight" and "regulations for dictating loans".

Possible Conflicts/Disagreements: Even though this is an aside, it might be considered its own miniature essay, possibly titled "Why McCain Gets a Pass". So it is easy to find places to disagree, respectfully, with the author. For instance, you could disagree that McCain's emergency vote absolves him from the socialist label: all it takes is one socialist act, perhaps, and there you have a policy, because there is some policy, a meta-policy, guiding even the emergency vote, right? And if that policy ultimately results in socialist measures then isn't it socialist? It is also possible to disagree with the author about the cause of the crash, which she attributes to the high-risk loans to the poor that resulted from a, according to her, a socialist policy. For instance, a line of argument might begin with noting that identifying a significant contributing cause is not the same thing as identifying the ultimate cause, if there even is one. And so might proceed to list other significant contributing causes and making a case for any of them to be viewed as the ultimate cause of the crash.

Part the Fifth (In which Dana gestures toward the dangers of muting "socialism" talk as Diuguid would like): Here the author offers an example of disreputable behavior toward a Palin supporter. The moral is supposed to be that those who claim, like Diuguid, that terms like "socialist" are racially-laden are encouraging people to view those worried about socailism talk as racists, and then to treat them as we've been taught to treat racists. But Diuguid's net is cast too wide, and even if it were true that socialism talk is racially laden for some people who are worried about socialism that is not true for all of them, and the result is a prejudice against anyone using the term, however innocently/sensibly.

Possible Conflicts/Disagreements: Here the place to press would be on the rhetorical move to include this story. Just as Diuguid's net may be cast too wide, so too is the impact of this story too broad: the reaction of the berators in the case of the girl cannot be reasonably tied to people thinking that "socialism" is a racially laden term. It might simply be that they think anyone who supports Palin is a racist because of things that she has said, or things they believe her to have said, apart from any socialism criticism. Also, the reaction of a small group of students shouldn't be enough to discourage identity-politics as worthless. So someone might take the author up on the question of the role of identity-politics in general, abstracted from this story of reactionary students.

Disagree with the author about whatever you wish. But there are at least two things worth noting here: (1) this is a genuine essay, well structured and balanced, relying on sources to make points clear and also to make rhetorical moves. It is not a hash of a job, posted by someone who doesn't know what she is doing. (2) It is not making the point, at its center, that most people responding to it in the comments think it is making. Maybe that's a failure of the writer. But readers have just as big a responsibility in doing their job as the writer does, and if you want to write a comment worth responding to it has to be based on a critical, thoughtful reading of the text.

 Dana has, of course, replied in comments once already and those remarks are also fair game. But I hope the game is fair.

http://backpackingdad.blogspot.com ( http://backpackingdad.blogspot.com/ )

differenec, but for the wealthy it is a way to save on taxes.

I wonder if you looked at it in percentage of income instead of actual dollars... 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

Let's also not forget how charitable deductions are a way of promoting one's status among the wealthier--note that the "Gates" foundation is named for the Gates family, members of which also put some fairly rigid restrictions on how the money is applied.

In addition, charitable donations are economic tools for the wealthy, who can deduct charitable contributions from their taxes. For lower or middle incomed people, many don't have enough in itemized deductions to make a difference in their taxes, so when they (we, I should say) give, we are getting nothing in return. Well, except the satisfaction of knowing we've done good.

Thanks for the correction Suzanne. I imagine that from a dollar amount perspective, the larger earners donate the largest combined monies. (Would be curious to see charts of dollar amount contributed by income in the US.)

I do tend to think in terms of sacrifice, rather than actual cash, but the statement was about cash amount.

You are right, Shelley, to point out the specious nature of this argument, but I think in terms of absolute dollars, the wealthiest do contribute the most money. HOWEVER, I took a look at the numbers, and in terms of percentage of income and net worth, the wealthy in America are the biggest misers on the planet. (I am glad to send the numbers to anyone who wants to see them, or even create a second post with the full analysis.) Combine that with the point that we both made that charitable giving tends to go to causes that directly benefit the donor in some way, then you have a very strong case for the utter failure of the wealthiest people in this nation. The top percentage makes a pre-reformed Scrooge look like a benefactor of society.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

There is no way to make me faster discredit an argument than to compare something random to Nazis. First, it makes me angry because it cheapens what the Nazis are about, which was fascism, racism, and the destruction of civil society. These are not values espoused in arguments for a fairer tax system in which the wealthy pay the proportionate share of the costs that leads them to their ability to benefit from society. Second, it makes me wonder why the person posing the argument is unable to distinguish between an evil government out to exterminate anyone deemed "undesirable" and for example, Sweden, a socialist country.

There are comparable parallels to Nazi Germany. I'd say the Darfur tragedy is a good thing to talk about. And someone who equates Darfur with a proposal for universal health insurance has lost his or her ability to fairly judge a given situation.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

"You do know that the wealthy also make up the vast majority of $$ contributed to charity, right?"

That's not true. You're equating dollar amount with sacrifice. The most generous state in the union is Mississippi, which is also the poorest state in the union. Though the people can't donate much, they donate when they can, what they can. 

Someone like Bill Gates can donate billions of dollars, but it has little or no impact on his lifestyle. He still has billions of dollars more to spend however he wants. Yet some police woman in Mississippi may donate $50.00 and she'll have to forgo her morning coffee, or eat pasta rather than meat for a week.

The same concept of impact applies to tax. You're looking at dollar amounts, when economists and others look at impact on lifestyle. A few percentage points of income tax can have devestating impacts on someone who is making less than 15,000 a year, and little or no impact on someone making millions, even though the percentage points yield vastly different amounts of money.

That's one reason why the stimulus checks were given out to lower and middle income earners in this country--the amounts would make a significant difference to a lower income person, who may go out and get that computer for their kid. For a wealthier person, though, the amount was meaningless. Chances are, they would have just put the money into their banks, and the stimulus effect would have been lost. 

So when you talk about taxes, payments, and so on, you need to look less at the amounts and more on the impact.

Now, you might argue that it's people's fault for not making millions, but where would society be without our teachers, police, fire, janitors, nurses, etc who make middle or lower incomes? Society either has to pay people much higher incomes for necessary work, or inact a tax system that taxes fairly, and not based on dollar amounts.

The people who pay the vast majority of the taxes (ahem, me) also earn the same proportion of income. I find it completely appropriate to pay a fair share in taxes of the awards that my family reaps. In order to earn our livelihoods, my husband and I rely on roads and public transportation to get us to our jobs efficiently; schools that supply an educated workforce to provide co-workers; a legal system that defends our rights as citizens and a police force that justly enforces public safety; a safe food and water supply; etc. All of this costs money. The vast majority of the US budget goes towards ensuring that the country runs. It is not pork or earmarks. It is not people unfairly taking money through me through welfare.

Also, the money that the wealthy give to charity in very large part goes to their churches and alma mater, not benefitting the vast majority of the public in any way, shape, or form. The government and a fair tax system is the only way to ensure a civil society exists. I benefit from this, and it is my obligation to contribute to it.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

I too got a great laugh at this.  It would be helpful if Click Michelle can tell you haw to trap the cialis commercials form my TV.  My 5 year old asked me the other day what was ereetile difucntion (her pronouciation).  After a breif paniky moment I told her it was a sickeness that old men get.  She then wanted to know if I meant old men like her dad or old men like her adopted granddad.  I told her to ask her father because it was a man thing.  Needless to say that exchange on the phone was HYSTERICAL.  I am sure my support check is going to be a little late but it was worth it!  :) 

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

We tax income, not wealth. What, do you want to start seizing peoples assets now?

The U.S. has a progressive tax structure -- with capital gains, local, state, federal taxes, many in upper brackets are starting to get close to a 50% tax rate. Don't you think it's "fair" to at least let people keep half of what they earn? I'm not rich by *any* means (at least in comparison to other U.S. citizens), and all this Robin Hood nonsense comes off as petty jealousy, plain and simple.

You do know that the wealthy also make up the vast majority of $$ contributed to charity, right? Personally I would have those funds go directly to those organizations to help people in need, rather than first be filtered through the pork-clogged sieve in Washington.

The utilitarians argued the humans pursued pleasure and avoided pain, which is consistent with Hobbes. Bentham, however said that there were "higher" and "lower" pleasuress. So material acquisition might bring pleasure, but using your goods to benefit a community can bring even greater pleasure. He attempted to put these tradeoffs in mathematical terms by using his hedonistic calculus ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus ):

The felicific calculus is an algorithm ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm ) formulated by utilitarian ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarians ) philosopher Jeremy Bentham ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham ) for calculating the degree or amount of pleasure ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure ) that a specific action is likely to cause. Bentham, an ethical ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics ) hedonist ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonist ),
believed the moral rightness or wrongness of an action to be a function
of the amount of pleasure or pain that it produced. Thus, the felicific
calculus could, in principle at least, determine the moral status of
any considered act. The algorithm is also known as the utility calculus, the hedonistic calculus and the hedonic calculus.

Variables ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable ), or vectors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_space ) of the pleasures and pains included in this calculation—which Bentham called "elements" or "dimensions"—were:[clarify ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clar... )]

Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duration ): How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty ) or Uncertainty ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty ): How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or Remoteness, time distance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_distance ): How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecundity ): The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
Purity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity ): The probability it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:

7. Extent ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extent ): How many people will be affected?
While the math of Bentham's caluculs is generally thougth impractical, the principles are the stuff of most public policy argument.

Final, we've had a mixed economy since the 1930s, and "so-ci-al-iasm" was never a monolith (the Fabian and Zionist influence on US politics in the early 20th century are at least as important as the Marxists), so we need to be much clearer in defining exactly what we are talking about.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

...  just able and honest researchers 

I understand where you're coming from, but I have no problem with a blogger who is a mother and who leans a certain way politically sharing her views as a contributing editor. We like hearing from the kitchen table as much as we like hearing from the halls of academia.

However, research is important. I think bloggers of all backgrounds should study complex topics and research using a variety of sources before they post to large audiences. We quickly learn that just because it's our opinion doesn't make it true and so we should be better prepared to defend our opinions with facts from subject matter experts. In other words, we need to approach controversial topics the way a good journalist would. A journalist who writes about the environment is not necessarily trained in environmentalism; however, we hope that the journalist has good critical thinking skills, excels in reading comprehension, and can explain in clear language to an audience his/her conclusions. The same is true for a good blogger especially if that blogger wants to retain credibility.

Dana, I'm sure, will defend herself and her opinions. 

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ). Recent BlogHer post, America's Dark Night of Soul ( http://www.blogher.com/americas-dark-night-soul-il... ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Thank you for those links, Erin. The one with McCain should shut up a lot of people, but it won't.

The socialist scare is just another exercise in Republicans coloring language to discredit progressives for doing something one of their favorites has him/herself done. It's also another phase of McCain reinventing himself ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/10/rolling-stone-... ) in hopes that no one has a record of his past.

I'll be so glad when this election is over. As I said in my last post here it's time for people to say "stop. enough." Right now I'm thinking that if I wanted comments on that post ( http://www.blogher.com/americas-dark-night-soul-il... ) I should have said something that made less sense. :-)

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ). At Blogher recently, America's Dark Night of Soul. ( http://www.blogher.com/americas-dark-night-soul-il... )

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

The bottom 80% of the US owns only 16% of the wealth in the US.  The top 20% own 84% of the wealth. Keep in mind, this was in 2001, and the trend has been going upward for the top 20%. (http://tinyurl.com/y6zst6) Don't you think it's fair that our tax rate should reflect this disparity?