You can put lipstick on the word socialism...

TPI, writing excellently as usual, defends his man, Senator Obama, from my crude association of Obama with socialistic policies. Let me further ignite the flames of open discussion in a celebration of the unique American gift of free speech, for right or wrong.

1. Whatever is said about Obama's policies vs. McCain's policies I promptly ignore because my comment towards Obama's socialistic leanings are not meant as an endorsement of Senator McCain. Both men voted in favor of the bailout, after all.

2. I take exception to the argument that Social Security is a largely successful and popular program. No tax-paying person in America finds Social Security popular, the system was not designed to last more than 10 years when it was incepted, by 2017 the payouts will exceed tax revenue and by 2040 (right when my demographic starts to retire) it will only cover an estimated 75% of payouts. Since its inception, a steadily increasing percentage of the elderly have required its aid to remain out of poverty: current levels are estimated at 40% of people above 65 years of age rely on Social Security. For all its noble ideals and good that it does do in some circumstances, Social Securityhas by and large become a crutch for this nation that should have learned by 1944 to stand on its own two feet and walk upright. The fact that increasing numbers of the elderly rely on Social Security is evidence that this nation has larger issues to solve, like the social acceptance of abandonment of the elderly by their children, and is not evidence that Social Security should be expanded by taxing the wealthy a higher percentage.

3. Furthermore, redistributing wealth through government programs that were designed to be war-time temporarities is downright bad policy. We could talk all day about the constitutionality of the income tax before and after the 16th Amendment, and we could talk all day about the fact that income taxes never exceeded 3% of total income for the middle and lower class before the Depression, and we could talk all day about whether increasing social benefits to aid the lower class in effect traps the lower class where it is by teaching them to depend upon those programs and not upon themselves. But those are arguments that would take forever, as they have been discussed for over 300 years.
The argument we should be having is whether Senator Obama, with his plan to add taxes to the wealthy and redistribute them to the poor (unlike Senator McCain distribution to financial institutions I assume per TPI's claim) is in effect expanding socialistic tendencies in America and what the effect of this will be.

4. Senator Obama said it himself, "you can put lipstick on a pig." Well you can call socialism "redistribution of wealth" if you want, but it is still, in effect, socialism, regardless of whether previous presidents have done the same (as I've pointed out). Show me a single nation on this planet where the proletariat...actually, let me stop using proletariat it makes me sound like Marx...show me a nation on this planet where government aid programs have effectively raised the living conditions of the lower class. I believe you would be hard pressed to find a single instance where governments who took the money of the wealthy and gave it to the poor in any way benefitted either the wealthy or the poor. The discussion is not worth having, really. Socialistic policies invariably fail given enough time.

"But TAE, Social Security, the PWA and various other policies worked during the Great Depression," the reader might respond. Correct, and incorrect. The socialistic programs that worked during the Great Depression were hardly socialistic. The CCC and other government employment programs aimed at increasing government payrolls and decreasing civilian unemployment were temporary, and their effectiveness at curbing unemployment and boosting the economy is debateable. Not to mention they set the tone for deficit spending via government intervention in the economy that persists to this day.

The solution to the Social Security problem is a tricky one in that the long term fix...i.e. abolishment flies in the face of the current fix...i.e. increased taxation.

Anyway, back to Obama's socialistic leanings. I am not justifying Obama as a socialist based solely on his belief in a tax increase to the wealthy...tax increases during times of crisis have been routine in American history. But the tax increase Obama plans makes no terms for its eventual decrease as well. The gradual increase in government-provided benefits for citizens via taxation of other citizens correlates with some strange things, like high school dropout rates, number of unwed mothers, and low-intensity drug use in affluent suburban teen populations. Whether these things are related is anyone's guess.

The point I am trying to make, from all this, is that, as it's been said before, if you give a man some fish, you feed him for a day. But if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.

Further taxes on the wealthy to boost the ineffective social programs for the poor teaches no one to fish.