Deseret News | Reader comments: U.S. can't afford socialism

Reader comments
Readers' forum: U.S. can't afford socialism

John C. | 2:09 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

I make about 20,000 a year and my wife can't work due to a illness she has, so I am one who stands to benifit from Obamas promises. But I also served in the Army and swore to protect the constitution from enemays both foreign and domistic. I took that seriously and I take my freedoms seriously. I won't sell my birth right for a mass of pottish.

GeeBee | 4:01 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

What we can't afford is more endless war. We can't afford to stick our heads in the sand about pollution. We can't afford to pad the pockets of big business off the lives of those who can't afford their "health care" or "energy". We can't afford to have hate and division spouted over the AM dial, creating the enemy out of our fellow countrymen. We can't afford to pretend we can have our cake, and let our great grandkids pay for it. We can't afford having a friendlier system of government become branded "socialism" by fanatics like you. We can't afford 8 years of rampant, unchecked captialism. We can't afford to stand by and watch other Americans get discriminated against because your religion doesn't like what they do in the bedroom. We can't afford to become a theocracy. We can't afford the last 8 years. God Bless America (EACH AND EVERY ONE) , God Bless President Obama (because like it or not, he's YOUR President).

Red | 6:39 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Let me get this straight:

You feelthat a marginal tax rate of 35 percent -- the current situation -- is good old free market capitalism, but raising the rate to 39.6 percent would be evil, un-American socialism.

Give me a break.

Comments continue below

Grover | 7:17 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Russell, welcome to the margins of the debate! Your ideas have lost currency because your champion was at the wheel when the current debacle hit. We stuck to your view for eight years. Time for you to get in the back seat for awhile. It the new man isn't up to the task, you will have your chance to try again. The country might be ready to try that way again or go it yet a third direction. It's called the American way.

Roland Kayser | 7:24 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

If you compare what we spend on healthcare with the spending of every other advanced country, I'd say we can't afford not to "socialize" our system.

SpySmiley | 7:26 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Dear Russell Bender:

Capitalism is working wonderfully, right?

Bert | 7:46 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

But forcing me to pay to help educate your children is OK?

Dave | 7:55 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

It is not socialism it is fascism. Gov regulates bussiness forcing them to do things they would not normally do, like make loans to people that cannot possibly pay them back. Wich is one of the reasons we are were we are today. Then they say "see capitalism doesn't work". It isn"t capitalism that fails it is fascism. The next step, wich we are in, is for gov to take over these 'failed' bussiness' then we have socialism.

Anonymous | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

'socialism' was the last bogeyman invented before the election by the far right. The election has come to pass, and it's time to move past it. I don't know what 'ism' we've had over the past few years, by the way, but we can't afford any more of that, either. BooHoo, coal has to clean up its' act. And unfettered bombast proffed as fact on the publicly owned radio frequency spectrum has certainly helped the level and civility of public discourse over the last few years, eh? I've hope for the future. The past was foolishness.

Michael | 9:16 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Obama's comment about coal actually incicated that it would bankrupt a company if they tried to build a new coal power plant. The coal industry as a whole will not be bankrupted, but after the restrictions on carbon emmissions are in place, it will not be financially viable to build new coal plants (unless they have clean coal technology- which has not yet been proven). This would have been true under Obama or McCain.

Obama's program's are no more Socialistic than Eisenhower's (the marginal taxrate under Eisenhower was 90%). We can no longer afford uncontrolled markets.

Anonymous | 9:16 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Why weren't you vocal about our freedom when Bush started wire tapping and searching Americans without warrants? This is a selective fear brought out by to much exposure to right wing propaganda?

I ask this question for good reason.

First thinking that Americans want to be socialist may be hatred of American or your just lacking any gain of faith in the American people.

Did those people that have been invoking fear in you tell you Obama is copying republicans? The progressive income tax was started by Teddy Roosevelt. Ronald Reagan started the earned income credit. These two, have morphed in to socialist who had the goal of ruining our republic?

I'm sorry that you are loosing sleep thinking Rush will be put out on the streets with Obama's change in Taxes. You can offset this buy buying more of his books.

Bored | 9:26 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Not this again. Wake up and move on, because it's about time America did. The world is not the same as it was 30 years ago, and socialism is NOT the same thing as communism. Have you even looked at a copy of the Communist Manifesto? Then you'd know what real communism is.

Lewt | 10:09 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

It's pretty apparent that Russell simply covers every idea he opposes with the same label - "socialism".

Gus Talwynd | 10:34 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

So, with an administration that has grown the government more than since LBJ's Great Society, a government that has literally ignored the precepts of the Constitution to gain more control over people's lives, and but We the People in such debt that it will take generations to pay the bill, the letter writer spouts the mantra "socialism" to absolve himself of any responsibility.

Other than not knowing what socialism really is, the letter writer blithely uses the term to condem anything and everything he doesn't like in this world that may cost him money in the form of taxes.

All socio-economic programs designed for the greater good suddenly become wrong (including public education, free public libraries, publically-funded police and fire protection) and the anti-tax crowd withdraw into their greed-contaminated caves while repeating the word "socialism" as if it were a social disease.

Really, the new definition of the word "socialism" is "I don't like to pay taxes. And, particularly, I don't like to pay where someone else benefits. However, I like it when I benefit from the taxes that other pay."

Let's understand that the word has become the new bugaboo word for the fringe Right, like "communism" before.

Anonymous | 10:53 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

I don't know what would be unconstitutional about any of Obama's proposals, you find out let me know. I also think any one who brings up the fairness doctrine in a letter to the editor, has been so brainwashed by A.M. radio that they cant even see straight. No one in the real world really cares about that, lets be honest with ourselves here.
I do not, and cannot believe that Barrak Obama's plans will do any harm to our country. Many of those in the middle class unbeknownest to them, are like a nine month old baby in a fight with Goliath. Deregulation has hurt the common person. It is true that it would not be fair to ablolish personal property. But that is not even been prooposed, all that has been proposed is that the rich in this country acctualy pay for the services they recieve from the government. And that the poor get thier god given rights back, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We must end the tyranny of deregulation.

Ernest T. Bass | 10:59 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

But we can afford a needless war and enormous deficits with tax cuts to the wealthy brought to us by republicans???

Lew Jeppson | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 8, 2008

The problem with the term "socialism" is that it has become an epithet devoid of any real meaning, like imbecile, moron, idiot. The terms socialist, Marxist, liberal, conservative are tossed around by people who have no idea as to their precise meanings. Hence, our debates in these blogs are largely pointless.

Right on, Gus and Lew! | 1:34 p.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Under current Joe Six-Pack definition, anything funded by taxes equates with "socialism" if program or project being funded is being done with any sort of relief or compassion in mind. However, if the government uses fear to push the program or project ala Let's-Bomb-And-Rebuild-Iraq-So-All-Those-Evil Terrorists-Won't-Attck-Us-Ever-Again, it is not "socialism," but downright unpatriotic to even think of opposing the expenditure. I have decided that that is what all of this left vs. right nonsense boils down to. The left wants to spend money in the name of compassion, and the right wants to spend money only if it means putting the hurt on some "evil threat." The ideal situation is to be very frugal, sensible, and cautious and spend reasonable, disciplined amounts in both areas. Most of this spending should be done on a local level. Things would improve nationwide if we would phase out wasteful federal programs and replace them with local programs. We'd still spend the money, but we'd have much better oversight and more efficient management all around. Taxes are a necessary evil, and as long as we pay them, we may as well get all the bang out of our buck that we can.

Anonymous | 3:00 p.m. Nov. 8, 2008

The party that financed our wars with Chinese credit is against raising taxes? What is debt but deferment of payment by paying interest and principle later? Bush increased taxes by borrowing hoping to stick another president with rough choices Bush didn't have the guts to make. Vietnam showed America you can have guns and butter. Vietnam lead to recession in the seventies.

As a veteran, I'm calling your bluff. Please explain to me how you can support our nation and the troops defending us, if you don't sacrifice and pay your fair share of the wars they are fighting in?

Morality you have no problem letting American soldiers risk death while you would sacrifice a dime?

the truth | 4:43 p.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Socialism is just the piped piper's sweet song leading you to communism and the goverment's faciistic control over your life and business.

Hitler and every other terrible leader from Lenin to stalin to castro to chavez have done the same thing.

Hitler and his cronies promised milk and cheese, told the people to hate the RICH jews,

Lenin, Stalin and theri followers taught the Government will take care of you and all you needs and Hate the RICH, the tzars, etc., They killed ten's of million educated enough to know better and those willing to fight ands speak out against them.

I could on and on with communistic and socialistic leaders doing the exact same thing over and over again.

Now we have Obama promising the Government will take care you, and Hate the Rich, the Oil companies, the CEOS, etc.

People just never learn how insidious socialism is, how it will take your liberties for a song.

NO socialistic or communistic government ever made poor person rich, just those in power.

Ultra Bob | 4:50 p.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Consider that we eliminate some of the socialist program from our lives. Like for instance the public police service. There are thousands of private individuals and groups who as capitalist would provide ï¿½police serviceï¿½. In that case it is called ï¿½protectionï¿½. Just think of the competition there would be for your money and the tactics that the different protection services might employ.

Then there could be capitalist private fire departments. If there profits were determined by how many fires they put out, might there be the possibility that the private fire department would set some fire. Also only people who could aford to pay for the service would have their home saved from fire.

How about we then do away with all government and have each individual take care of themselves and have total responsibility for their own lives. It seems to work for the other animals in the Jungle.

Nathan | 7:08 p.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Don't condemn free markets on the basis of what happened in the housing market. Government intervention was the problem, not the solution. (The euphemism was "affordable housing.") Our health care system has the same problem. Government intrudes until the system fails, then some genius says, "Hey, let's put government in charge."

V.I. Palin | 11:30 p.m. Nov. 8, 2008

Yup, I was right. Not far enough right, though. I need to get out more.

There IS a John Bircher convention in town. It's good for the economy.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.