With all due respect I think my friend Lisa misses the point here. No one is asking for an apology for criticizing Senator Obama’s spending proposals. They should be criticized and critiqued at all possible turns. The point here is that there is a huge difference between calling something a “mistake” and calling someone a socialist. That’s the case between Bush-McCain and Obama.
It’s fair to state that Lisa does indeed say that Bush’s latest socialist expansion could be labeled as socialism. But then it’s quickly dismissed by saying it takes someone who thoroughly understands the ways of the financial markets to explain the wisdom behind handing out government checks. No, it actually doesn’t. This is basic stuff. Muddying up the waters by saying it takes a complete understanding of the markets and the financial system (in other words, there must be a good, solid reason for Bush to do what he did) still begs the difference of calling something a mistake or calling it socialism. The end result is still the same; it's the means that is trying to be muddied. It doesn’t take an economist to note that Bush has expanded the size and role of government in the financial markets by bailing out failed banks and businesses more than anyone since FDR. When the government owns 80% of a business that’s socialism, just call it that. My point is that if Obama intervened the government to take over 80% of a failed business there is no doubt that he would be called a socialist. He’s never done any such thing and he’s already routinely called a socialist.
Also, the money Obama has supported to be spent on a UN initiative to combat global poverty could be paid in full with one week’s cost of Iraq. In addition, Obama has called for increased spending on domestic projects, such as health care, roads and schools and police officers. It’s not foreign aid that has given us the largest deficit in American history. It’s the war in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been ongoing for 5 and 7 years—both longer than our total involvement in WWII. Freezing foreign aid is neither necessary nor logical to overcome our budget deficits. One could also, clearly, make the argument that Bush’s war in Iraq is in itself foreign aid. I’m not sure what else you could call building roads, schools, bridges and other infrastructure in a foreign country. If Republicans are so concerned about getting positive results from foreign aid spending they would entirely rethink their plans for war without end.
Cutting taxes in a time of war is not only a disservice to our veterans but to the war front effort. Bush has made tax cuts the staple of his only domestic policy. Obama’s plan to raise taxes on people making over $250,000/year is the least that could be done to help pay for a war that Republicans think should be spread to Iran, Russia and wherever else they may see the need for an American invasion. All this goes without mentioning that every single one of Obama’s spending proposals could be paid 10 times over for the money we’ve already spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
*Editor's note: The original title of this post was misspelled. I've now corrected it.
