If Barack Obama's a socialist, what's George W. Bush?

Today Republican John McCain dropped the word "socialism" from his attacks on Democrat Barack Obama, telling a crowd in St. Charles, Mo., only that his opponent wants to "spread the wealth around" but resisting the "S" word.

He believes in redistributing wealth -- not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans. Sen. Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than in growing the pie.

Ditto the GOP's vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who told a crowd in Colorado Springs, Colo., that Obama favors tax hikes to redistribute wealth. Sort of a reprise of the argument Obama heard from Joe the Plumber.

Our opponent's plan is just more big government, and John and I think that that is the problem, not the solution. Instead of taking your hard-earned money and spreading your wealth, we want to spread opportunity so people like you and Joe the Plumber can create new wealth.

Why the change in tone?

First, Obama has been shredding the charge by reminding voters, in an incredulous tone of voice, that he has been endorsed by such Titans of the Establishment as Warren Buffett and Colin Powell.

But the larger problem for the McCain-Palin ticket's attempt to tie Obama to socialism is ... George W. Bush.

In the last four weeks, President Bush has proposed a $700-billion bailout of the financial sector, pressed his Treasury secretary to push equity into the system and met with key world leaders on how to regulate the global markets.

"The fly in the ointment for this socialism argument is the recent bank bailout," Larry Sabato, who heads the University of Virginia's nonpartisan Center for Politics, told CNN. "That's probably the most egregious example of socialism in American history."

As Countdown to Crawford noted in an earlier post, London's Telegraph captured this shift with its headline: "We're All Socialists Now, Comrade."

On Sunday, Fox News' Chris Wallace asked McCain about whether he's as much a socialist as the rest of us. Here's their exchange.

WALLACE: But, Senator, you voted for the $700-billion bailout that's being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn't that socialism?

MCCAIN: That is reacting to a crisis that's due to greed and excess in Washington. And what this administration is doing wrong, and what Paulson is doing wrong, is not going out and buying up home loan mortgages, home mortgages, and giving people new mortgages at the new value of their home so they can stay in their home. They're bailing out the banks. They're bailing out these institutions.

WALLACE: But you voted for that.

MCCAIN: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank.... That's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and when time of crisis to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people. It wasn't Main Street America that caused this. It was Washington and Wall Street.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo: Tom Uhlman / Associated Press

Comments

[JASON]

Isn't buying mortages and giving homeowners new loans (presumably through the federal gavernment) every bit as much a socialist program as partially nationalizing banks?

[lordastral]

Well, of course.

The Republican call it socialism when you lower the tax burden on the middle class. But its not socialism when you do the same thing to the filthy rich.

And lets also remember that the "tax increase" Barack Obama is proposing is nothing more than removing some of the tax cuts Bush and the Republican controlled congress gave to big corporations.

[Lluvia Rey]

The most resent bail out is not the only thing that has brought "US" closer to or into socialism. That boat sailed along time ago, you can't keep doing socialist stuff and not call it what it is. A is A, it always will be.
John dropped the word because his handlers got scared this sort of debate would keep coming up. Watch for him to deny ever using the word.

[Ralph]

Who's running the McCain/Palin campaign again? Sounds like he made the socialist comment about Obama and then explained why we need to do it.

Obama/Biden 08

All the way BABY!!!!

[Dave]

Funny how democrats always have to point the finger and say what about him when they get called out!

What about Bill Ayers, Acorn, Rev Wright etc.....

I am canceling my L.A. Times!!!!

[lyndel]

The reason that 40% of working Americans do not pay income taxes is that they are so poorly paid that their incomes do not rise to the level where they have to pay.

Want to know how to get all working Americans paying taxes? That's easy. Just pay them a living wage which is somewhere around $16 to $17 an hour!

By taking a small percentage off the top 5% and using it to raise the wages of all the grunt workers we would once again have a strong middle class. After all, it is the labor of the grunt workers who put those zions of industry and medicine in the top 5% bracket

[AJBopp]

So let me get this straight. The Republican Party wants to give tax credits and breaks to big business and wealthy Americans so that these businesses and individuals, bolstered by their even greater wealth, will be inspired to create more jobs, and therefore revive the economy.

The Democrats want to levy a higher tax on large businesses and wealthy Americans to pay for a tax cut for "the other 95%" of Americans, so that the majority of the people in this country, bolstered by having a little more money available, will be inspired to buy more things, which in turn will require business to create more jobs, and therefore revive the economy.

Haven't we learned these last few weeks that letting the rich get richer only inspires, in McCain's words, greedy behavior - as opposed to an urgent desire to create jobs for goods and services that few can afford?

Haven't we progressed far enough to be able to reason out that supply and demand will ensure that if we create the demand, the supply will come, regardless of a 3% higher tax on income over $250K?

Why is this even an issue?

In the end, ALL politicians spread the wealth around. Some spread it from the bottom up, and other spread it from the top down. One way is just as socialist as the next...which is to say, neither approach is socialist.

Let's stop arguing about ideology and start arguing about reality. We'll have a lot less to argue about.

[Observer]

Lowering ones persons taxes is one thing.

Lowering taxes on one person by raising the taxes on another?

Well that is Socialism.

Please people. 1917 Russia.

What is next, hey you have too many bedrooms, I deserve one.

[Disgusted]

How far can you stoop, how low can you go, how far can you fall? Come on, L.A. Times, you can't get any lower than this. You are becoming a tabloid paper.

George Bush is absolutely not a socialist; Bush never said he'd "redistribute the wealth".

Obama DID say on national TV that he wanted to "redistibute the wealth" and guess who else did: KARL MARX. It should not surprise anyone, not even the liberal media, that this man Obama is a socialist. His mentor was the late communist Frank Marshall Davis. READ Obama's first book ... Obama writes about visiting with Frank, Frank having hard earned knowledge and advise; and that they were like father & son. Obama also wrote that he (Obama) attended socialist conferences.

So quit trying to start something you can't finish, LAT: Obama IS a socialist but Bush IS NOT.

[Gryphon]

McPain wants it both ways. Ol Johnny boy voted for the socialistic bailouts of Wall Street and Banks -- as did Obama -- yet he criticizes his opponent for being a socialist. No wonder John McCain is considered ERRATIC. Stick a fork in 'em, McPain is finished!

[mavisdarling]

Sarah Palin doesn't even know the MEANING of socialism, and neither do most of her fans who show up at her rallies. It's just another word she was using to stir up fear and loathing of Obama.

[zach]

" Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying les, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don't think is accurate. " - Colin Powell.

[Tim]

The McCain campaign has even more to explain.

The idea that the government should somehow buy up mortgages from persons who bought houses on terms they could not afford, is something the real European socialists have never dared to dream of. This truly is wealth distribution in its rawest form: a government assuring the housing needs of its population by active intervention in the markets using money of some tax payers (in particular those who did not overplay their hand on the housing market) to ensure housing - probably even in a form that go beyond the strict needs of their occupants - for others who actually acted irresponsibly.

[John]

Bush is not a socialist - or racist, or radical, or marxist, or communist - all of those attributes can be attributed to Obama - clearly so. It is a wild stretch of the imagination to try it - and you have, but you've not succeeded. Because the facts do not support it, like they do in Obama's case. Period!

[osama lin biden]

lets get to socialism faster......lets join the EU......lets make peace with the terrorists.......lets convert......lets sing kum ba ya.........vote obamalinbiden!

[TJ]

As Jon Stewart once said, "Honestly folks... I think my brain is broken..."

John McCain wants the government (i.e., tax payers) to buy up destressed home mortgages at full face value, write off the difference between what the purchaser originally paid and what the homes are currently worth or will be worth in the near future, and then give the borrowers a new mortgage at a lower rate. If that isn't SOCIALISM and REDISTRIBUTION of WEALTH, I don't know what is.

And what is McCain going to do for the millions who have already lost their homes...buy them a new one at tax payer expense?

By the way, Fitch Ratings Service said on Monday that U.S. home prices will fall another 10 percent before they begin to show signs of stabilizing.

[David]

Good post AJ. I enjoyed it, solid points.

I like how everyone blames Bush for the credit slam. It's irresponsible people who don't understand credit being given too much credit by banks. In a free market like ours we cannot regulate the companies so strictly until something like this does happen. This is a cycle of the economy, flushing out weaker competitors and pushing the rest, who have good, sustainable business practices, to the top. It's capitalism. Fully learn the root causes to things before you point fingers.

Oil prices. Not directly his fault. While war in an oil rich region will push up prices a little due to a slight drawback in exportation, it will actually affect us less than we were led to believe. Oil is a traded futures commodity, therefore there are people speculating that the price per barrel will rise, so they buy on the notion that it will rise, if this argument is convincing enough, the price skyrockets because other speculators jump on the train. So while there are loose ties to Bush, it is more directly related to the people who trade oil as a futures commodity and are looking to make money of its rise.

Investigate relevant things before tearing apart either candidate, not trivial one time facts. Take some responsibility for yourself. This is how we got here. And its how you get out. Don't rely on government to do everything for you, if you do...you'll be sorely disappointed. It's a lack of that "work hard earn your keep" American spirit that past generations have had, and that this current generation has missed. Take responsibility for yourself.

[Steve Hanes]

Anyone who resorts to the old "he's a socialist" rhetoric should remind themselves that Adolf Hitler used that criticism on a continual basis in an attempt to play on the fears of a German populace frightened by the liberalism of the Weimar Republic, the failing German economy, the growth of Bavarian unions and the so-called "vast Jewish conspiracy." So if you'd like to share the paranoid landscape of Hitler's mind, then hurl your "socialist" epithets at will, but remind yourself whose company you keep.

[Timbo]

Americans have already started swallowing socailism a long time ago. Obama is just finishing the job. Get over it typical white people.

[bitfool]

If Barack Obama's a Socialist, then George W. Bush must be a Robber Baron. We've seen unprecedented redistribution of wealth toward the upper class in these last years, even after the huge declines in the markets these past weeks. And the "rescue plan" is a good bit more heinous than an Obama-style socialism ploy. The real beneficiaries will still be the banker classes, who'll get bailed out instead of being allowed to fail. In the short term the bailout/rescue may be better for the economy, but in the long run, it's more of the same.

President Bush's comments approving the final passage of the rescue plan once again didn't pass the smell test. He said that the bill would help restore the trust that banks need to lend to other banks... that doesn't make much sense to common folk like me. Why do banks need to lend to other banks? On the other hand, the bond markets are crazy right now... none of the Money Market Fund managers wants to buy any commercial bonds. That makes sense to me... if they won't buy the bonds, the companies don't have access to the capital they rely on. How is this bailout helping them? How is this bailout helping the smaller companies (who can't issue bonds) get loans from banks? None of that has been laid out clearly... instead we give the money to Mr. Wall Street Paulsen and hope for the best. I suspect somebody will get the best, but it will probably be Wall Streeters. McCain's buying mortgages directly is the worst idea I've heard yet... but I won't get started on that now.

[frank1569]

Note to author: the "bailout" was $850 billion, not $700 billion. And you forgot to mention the government take-over of Fannie and Freddie and AIG and, let's not forget, all of "airport security." One heinous "bailout" may not be technically socialism, but when you put it all together, well...

[T-Bone]

A socialist would argue the following:

"That's the reason why we have governments, to help those who need help, who can't help themselves, and when time of crisis to step in and do what's necessary to preserve the lives and futures of innocent people. It wasn't Main Street America that caused this. It was Washington and Wall Street."

Unless McCain now thinks falling wages even while productivity increases is the fault of Main Street.

And Palin wants to "spread opportunities" but how? Taxing me more now when I earn less than 250,000 isn't going to help me have the opportunity to start a business or to move to a new opportunity or to pay for more education. And not helping people to pay their bills won't help create the demand that a new business can fill.

It's all empty rhetoric and playing on negative phrases.

Did not Senator McCain state that he was going to use Government funds to buy up mortgages so that people could stay in their homes.

Isn't that socialism...?

[Timbo]

I can't believe Colin Powell said this:

Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying les, and for us to say that makes you a socialist is an unfortunate characterization that I don't think is accurate."

We arent talking about infrastructure, thats a given. He's trying to redirect the subject. We are talking about a $700 billion dollar bailout and Obamas 1 trillion dollar health plan.

[Joseph, Ontario]

McCain-Palin are unsteady and risky.
Right now, they will do anything to win the election.