McCain Supports Higher Taxes on the Rich

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Again, maybe not if you discuss things in absolutes, but by any reasonable measure McCain is more conservative than Obama.

That's really not true either. Do you equate convservative with "fiscal responsibility?" If so, McCain is less conservative on the issue of responsibility.

Also, it would be absolutely wrong to insinuate that McCain does not want bigger government and more spending on the things that he wants, e.g. military (consider the cost of the wars that he has said or implied we need to consider in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, as well as maybe even Russia).

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF is saying, 'That is not true.' they're both socialist.

They are, but you are ignoring a level of detail that we do have.

Then at the least McCain should be saying "Obama is 4% more socialist than me."

Being that Obama is only looking to raise taxes on those who make over 250k annually 4%. The fact is that McCain is being blatantly dishonest and trying to label Obama as a socialist using it as a perjorative when if anything he's guilty of the same thing.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The point is not about Gore. It's about Politicians switching positions for political gain. They ALL do it.

I don't know many politicians that have gone from being socialists to capitalists which is exactly what McCain is trying to present himself as. But, taking your point, would you call McCain a hypocrite for doing what he's doing now?

[PeterMP]

Ok, but can I suggest that you are inherently portraying both men on the scale where you see them. I mean, both could be considered right of center on their tax plans (and if we were to compare them to the rest of the industrialized world, that would probably be accurate). So, what you are saying is that even though both are closer on the overall scale to anarchy, Obama is closer to socialism. Seems silly, no?

Also, by just looking at who's a little further to the left or the right, we could say that Obama is also closer to communism (because communism is left of socialism) and we could also say that McCain is closer to fascism (which is on the right).

Overall, these are all ridiculous. Whether or not one of them is "closer" to one of these descriptions is irrelevant. Neither of them are "close" to any of these descriptions. In fact, both are quite centrist.

Well, I don't think communism is such a gradual scale. Communism suggest a classless society where everybody is equal. Either you've achieved that goal or you haven't.

I also don't necessarily agree that facism suggest a right way movement. To the "right" of communism (w/ communism being an extreme) is not facism, but lassiz faire capitialism. Facism would be measured on a completely different scale. There's no reason a socialist goverment can't be facist.

In terms of the rest, degrees do matter. I think (assuming) you are basing your arguement based on the idea of disarming a central arguement from the McCain camp not to vote for Obama. Obama isn't really socialist so why not vote for him. On the worldwide scale of the economic practices, there isn't much of a difference between them. That cuts both ways though. There are plenty of people voting for Obama because he opposes the Bush tax cut (or at least does under more ideal economic conditions).

Should those people eliminate that consideration when voting for him because it is an insiginficant difference when measure on this larger scale?

No. With respect to our history (and I'd argue economic theory) it is a big enough difference that people should consider.

Generally, I'm surprised than an Obama supporter would use this arguement. I'd guess that more people will vote for Obama because he's against the Bush tax cut (and McCain is for it) than will vote the other way because he's more socialist than McCain.

[PeterMP]

That's really not true either. Do you equate convservative with "fiscal responsibility?" If so, McCain is less conservative on the issue of responsibility.

That's your other thread, and I'd still say you are wrong. Go bump it if you want to consider the discussion.

Also, it would be absolutely wrong to insinuate that McCain does not want bigger government and more spending on the things that he wants, e.g. military (consider the cost of the wars that he has said or implied we need to consider in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, as well as maybe even Russia).

Well, if we think of the size of the military in the broader context of recent American history, we'd actually conclude that the American military is to small so AND that we've seen negative affects due to the reduction of the American military. I could easily argue that increasing the size of the military would be a conservative course of action.

In addition, I doubt you can find me ANYTHING that would suggest that McCain is more supportive of an actual war against Iran and espeically Russia than Obama.

**EDIT**

I also don't think that McCain is calling for any real increase in the military over Obama.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, I don't think communism is such a gradual scale. Communism suggest a classless society where everybody is equal. Either you've achieved that goal or you haven't.

I also don't necessarily agree that facism suggest a right way movement. To the "right" of communism (w/ communism being an extreme) is not facism, but lassiz faire capitialism. Facism would be measured on a completely different scale. There's no reason a socialist goverment can't be facist.

In terms of the rest, degrees do matter. I think (assuming) you are basing your arguement based on the idea of disarming a central arguement from the McCain camp not to vote for Obama. Obama isn't really socialist so why not vote for him. On the worldwide scale of the economic practices, there isn't much of a difference between them. That cuts both ways though. There are plenty of people voting for Obama because he opposes the Bush tax cut (or at least does under more ideal economic conditions).

Should those people eliminate that consideration when voting for him because it is an insiginficant difference when measure on this larger scale?

No. With respect to our history (and I'd argue economic theory) it is a big enough difference that people should consider.

Generally, I'm surprised than an Obama supporter would use this arguement. I'd guess that more people will vote for Obama because he's against the Bush tax cut (and McCain is for it) than will vote the other way because he's more socialist than McCain.

I think you misinterpreted my argument which was really that McCain is being totally disingenuous to suggest that Obama is socialist. You are right, fascism is probably not the extreme right... I suppose the EXTREME right is anarchism (pure capitalism is not the extreme right, imo). I'm looking at this on a scale of government involvement, ownership, and control of goods, ftr.

But, on a separate argument, if you want to know why I think Obama's economic/tax plan is better, its because it puts more money into more people's hands and runs a smaller deficit. Despite the regular cries that I'm a flaming liberal, I really just dont believe in spend and BORROW, which was what happened under Bush (and admittedly is not true conservatism). I also believe that people on the right often ask a lot of their federal government, but then complain that its doing too much (wars cost money, for example).

All that being said, the point is that its ridiculous to insinuate that Obama is "more socialist" than McCain or something because when we look at the whole scale, the world scale, both are RIGHT of center, but pretty close to the center. So, Obama is "closer to socialism," but he has to go across the center line to do it. And by that token, McCain is "closer to anarchism." But this is hyperbole, and is disingenous of the reality of the plans that are proposed.

[PeterMP]

Then at the least McCain should be saying "Obama is 4% more socialist than me."

Being that Obama is only looking to raise taxes on those who make over 250k annually 4%. The fact is that McCain is being blatantly dishonest and trying to label Obama as a socialist using it as a perjorative when if anything he's guilty of the same thing.

Sure and Obama should be saying that McCain's economic plan is only 4% more like George Bush's than mine.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, if we think of the size of the military in the broader context of recent American history, we'd actually conclude that the American military is to small so AND that we've seen negative affects due to the reduction of the American military. I could easily argue that increasing the size of the military would be a conservative course of action.

In addition, I doubt you can find me ANYTHING that would suggest that McCain is more supportive of an actual war against Iran and espeically Russia than Obama.

**EDIT**

I also don't think that McCain is calling for any real increase in the military over Obama.

Well, that goes to my comment that conservatives often want a lot from their government, if you are going to argue that the military is too small.

I can find tons of things that show that McCain is more supportive of a war against Iran (which would also be a war against Russia, ftr). starting with "bomb bomb Iran," but even saying he will not meet and talk with them. That IS forcing another war.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Sure and Obama should be saying that McCain's economic plan is only 4% more like George Bush's than mine.

In fairness, he wants to keep the George Bush tax cuts. George Bush is not on one side of the scale and socialism on the other. McCain is proposing to land on the same place of the scale that Bush proposed... to keep the bush tax cuts. That is not 4% like Bush's tax plan, it IS Bush's tax plan.

[PeterMP]

In fairness, he wants to keep the George Bush tax cuts. George Bush is not on one side of the scale and socialism on the other. McCain is proposing to land on the same place of the scale that Bush proposed... to keep the bush tax cuts. That is not 4% like Bush's tax plan, it IS Bush's tax plan.

Let me rephrase, Obama should be saying my tax plan is a whole 4% different than George Bush's. (The issue is more complex than that becuase the Bush tax cuts in the expiration isn't that simple).

[PeterMP]

I think you misinterpreted my argument which was really that McCain is being totally disingenuous to suggest that Obama is socialist. You are right, fascism is probably not the extreme right... I suppose the EXTREME right is anarchism (pure capitalism is not the extreme right, imo). I'm looking at this on a scale of government involvement, ownership, and control of goods, ftr.

Well, I'd disagree that anarchism is on the extreme right of communism. I'd again say, its on a completely different scale (you need a separate 2D graph or a multi-dimensional graph).

But, on a separate argument, if you want to know why I think Obama's economic/tax plan is better, its because it puts more money into more people's hands and runs a smaller deficit. Despite the regular cries that I'm a flaming liberal, I really just dont believe in spend and BORROW, which was what happened under Bush (and admittedly is not true conservatism). I also believe that people on the right often ask a lot of their federal government, but then complain that its doing too much (wars cost money, for example).

Well, that's fine. However, in putting more money in more people's hands you are taking it out of others that's socialistic in nature. I do believe the wealth in this country has been to concentrated, but I'd like to see us try and fix the problem in some way that isn't directly the goverment taking it and giving it to others.

For others, you might even be right in the short term, but long term, unless something changes, you are wrong. Obama is going to pass the cost of health care onto the goverment in many cases. The cost of healthcare for every western country I know of has increased faster than the rate of inflation and GDP for a while now. This includes England, France, Canada, and Germany. To my knowledge, there is no reason to believe this trend won't continue or that there's something unique about Obama's plan w/ respect to these other countries that would prevent it. In addition, simple history shows that the elimination of goverment involvement is hard to get rid of once its there.

I think its hard to argue that Obama's plan long term won't result in such increases and therefore cost to the goverment. It isn't realistic to belive that the goverment is going to be able to increase taxes to keep up when the cost is increasing faster than inflation and GDP.

All that being said, the point is that its ridiculous to insinuate that Obama is "more socialist" than McCain or something because when we look at the whole scale, the world scale, both are RIGHT of center, but pretty close to the center. So, Obama is "closer to socialism," but he has to go across the center line to do it. And by that token, McCain is "closer to anarchism." But this is hyperbole, and is disingenous of the reality of the plans that are proposed.

Again, I think your anarchism thing is misguided. There are clearly places where McCain would support further goverment involvement than Obama that would be the opposite direction as anarchy. I think the partial birth abortion ban is one example.

[Zguy28]

So why is he a capitalist and Obama a socialist then, according to some?

He's not a capitalist nor conservative. Yet when conservatives (like me) say that, we get accused of practically eating our own young.

Which way do you want it?

[PeterMP]

Well, that goes to my comment that conservatives often want a lot from their government, if you are going to argue that the military is too small.

I can find tons of things that show that McCain is more supportive of a war against Iran (which would also be a war against Russia, ftr). starting with "bomb bomb Iran," but even saying he will not meet and talk with them. That IS forcing another war.

1. Well, I think you are mixing things up. I judge Conservatives to be people that tend to resist changes from the status quo. I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be conservative. He's either a libertarian or a strict constitutionalist. I'm for big goverment where big goverment has been pretty successful.

2. We haven't talked to lots of countries and didn't go to war with them. How much interactions have we had with Cuba for the last 30+ years? No war. We didn't communicate w/ Vietnam for an extended period of time after the war there, but it didn't cause another war. Until Nixon, I didn't communicate with China for a long time. No war. Not talking to people IS NOT an invention of the Bush administration.

3. To a certain extent you are incorrect which is an indication of how good Obama did spinning his error. McCain never said that he wouldn't (and more importantly his administration wouldn't) talk to Iran. He said that HE wouldn't meet with the leaders w/o preconditions. That leaves lots of possible lower level interactions.

4. I'll even ignore that the bomb thing was a joke. We've bombed lots of countries w/o a real war or really expanding the military as a direct result. Clinton's attacks on Afghanistand and Reagan's on Libya's off the top of my head.

5. I don't think that a war against Iran would mean a war against Russia. China is much more likely.

[brianm23]

According to his plan he doesn't. It's Obama that does. (graph courtesy of Washington Post)

[alexey]

Peter,

You do not want to get into the definition of "socialism", but then you create a "socialism scale" using a blatantly incorrect definition of socialism and proceed to claim that Obama is more socialist than McCain on your scale.

I have to say that I am very dissapointed in the quality of arguments you are advancing.

This has been going on for quite some time. I sincerely hope you will take a honest introspective look at yourself to see what, if anything, may be subverting your analytical processes.

[Zguy28]

Peter,

You do not want to get into the definition of "socialism", but then you create a "socialism scale" using a blatantly incorrect definition of socialism and proceed to claim that Obama is more socialist than McCain on your scale.

I have to say that I am very dissapointed in the quality of arguments you are advancing.

This has been going on for quite some time. I sincerely hope you will take a honest introspective look at yourself to see what, if anything, may be subverting your analytical processes.

I knew it. You're a Vulcan aren't you?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

You do not want to get into the definition of "socialism", but then you create a "socialism scale" using a blatantly incorrect definition of socialism and proceed to claim that Obama is more socialist than McCain on your scale.

I have to say that I am very dissapointed in the quality of arguments you are advancing.

This has been going on for quite some time. I sincerely hope you will take a honest introspective look at yourself to see what, if anything, may be subverting your analytical processes.

Well, I was using the defintion that was used in the context of the thread as established by the OP w/ the understanding that you have issues with it. In addition, the context used in this thread is not uncommon in today's society.

If it makes you feel better and improves your opinion of my analytical processes subsititue 'direct goverment actions causing wealth redistribution'.

I don't think in the context of the OP and the thread it changes the debate much. McCain is claiming that Obama supports direct goverment actions causing wealth redistribution. The OP would correctly point out that so does McCain.

I would agree that at a higher level that's true, but it ignores levels of details that we have. Obama supports more direct goverment actions causing wealth redistribution than McCain at least at the level of individuals, which was the topic of this thread.

TSF would appear to argue that in the context of the larger scale the difference between the direct goverment actions causing wealth redistribution that there is not enough difference between McCain and Obama for McCain to be making an issue over it.

**EDIT**

I also think the very definition of socialism does provide to be a socialism scale. It is an intermediate period between capitialism and communism. It is only reasonable there are going to be different intermediates at different times for different societies (assuming communist theory is true).

[Koolblue13]

I've enjoyed reading this thread. Just throwing it out there.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

You do not want to get into the definition of "socialism", but then you create a "socialism scale" using a blatantly incorrect definition of socialism and proceed to claim that Obama is more socialist than McCain on your scale.

I have to say that I am very dissapointed in the quality of arguments you are advancing.

This has been going on for quite some time. I sincerely hope you will take a honest introspective look at yourself to see what, if anything, may be subverting your analytical processes.

You know alexey, the more I think about this, especially in the context of communist theory, I think you are wrong.

1. We aren't a communist country and especially by the understanding of thinkers when the word was invented we aren't a capitialist country so we must be a socialist country.

2. To my knowledge, there is nothing about about communist theory that suggest that every society at every time will go through the same socialist intermediate or that some socities woudn't go through multiple intermediates so there must be some sort of scale. The scale can be (and I'd argue that communist thinkers saw it this way) a serious of disconnected points in which one did not have to step from one to another, but could jump from one point to any other point (presumably with some probability based on the distance and direction).

For our purposes, let's assume we have a 1-D scale (a line). I think w/ respect to communism as a whole its probably more complex than that because communism as a whole suggest things about society rather than just economic factors, but if we consider just communism w/ respect to economics and capitialism on the otherside (we'll use left and right in their standard sense), I don't think its improper to talk about where on the scale (what point we will be at) (and to think of the scale as a line isn't probably an awful over simplification) w/ respect to Obama's policies and McCain's policies.

Now, as I even stated in the beginning. We are not now, especially by the understanding of the original thinkers, a capitialistic society. We certainly won't be under McCain so they are both socialist. In that sense, as I stated in the beginning, the OP is correct.

If we only consider things like income taxes and services to the individual (the focus of this thread), I find it hard to belive that the point in the scale to which Obama would take us isn't further to the left than McCain (of course, if you want to make the opposite arguement, I'd be happy to listen to it).

I will concede that as the points aren't connected, it is possible that the probability by which we end up at communism might be higher at the point that McCain will take us than Obama. I believe some communist theorists have in fact pushed that very idea. Socities with large disproportionate wealth levels will proceed to communism more quickly than those where the goverment is taking direct efforts to decrease the wealth disparity and therefore the efforts taken by various European countries were slowing the slide to communism as compared to what the original thinkers thought based on their societies at the time.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

TSF would appear to argue that in the context of the larger scale the difference between the direct goverment actions causing wealth redistribution that there is not enough difference between McCain and Obama for McCain to be making an issue over it.

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying on the scale, Obama is not close to socialism. He's centrist on the large scale. But, there is a difference between the two. Its just that socialism is so far to the left of Obama, it would be akin to saying McCain is an anarchist because he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. :2cents:

[PeterMP]

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying on the scale, Obama is not close to socialism. He's centrist on the large scale. But, there is a difference between the two. Its just that socialism is so far to the left of Obama, it would be akin to saying McCain is an anarchist because he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. :2cents:

Well, I still think you are wrong. They are both socialist. Obama is just closer on the scale (in terms of distance not necessarily probability) to communism than McCain (or Obama is more socialist than McCain- which is McCain's point).

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, I still think you are wrong. They are both socialist. Obama is just closer on the scale (in terms of distance not necessarily probability) to communism than McCain (or Obama is more socialist than McCain- which is McCain's point).

Ok, then Obama should start arguing that McCain is more anarchist. And they can both be right... and annoying.

[PeterMP]

Ok, then Obama should start arguing that McCain is more anarchist. And they can both be right... and annoying.

Except, as I've already stated, that on at least on some issues, McCain is less anarchist than Obama. As an example, the partial birth abortion ban.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Except, as I've already stated, that on at least on some issues, McCain is less anarchist than Obama. As an example, the partial birth abortion ban.

So I guess he's more socialist than Obama.

[PeterMP]

So I guess he's more socialist than Obama.

Socialist is a term normally associated with economic principles not goverment control.

I would suggest that partial birth abortion ban suggests that McCain more supports a totalitarian goverment. Theoritically a totalitarian goverment can be anywhere on the economic scale (e.g. capitialist or communist). Of course, there are other issues where Obama is on the other side that would make him appear more totalitarian.