Do As I Say, Not As I Do
After Sunday’s New York Times Magazine story detailing the McCain campaign’s throw-anything-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks version of campaigning, it seems something may have finally found its mark: socialism. Or at least it has with the conservative readers of this blog. Too bad it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I’m wondering if anyone watched “Meet the Press” this Sunday? Sen. McCain was the only guest, and he was asked if he honestly thought that Obama would have advisors like Warren Buffet; Paul Volcker, the former Chairman of the Fed under Reagan; Bob Rubin, former Treasury Secretary; and Christopher Buckley, son of the founder of modern conservatism helping him craft his fiscal policy if they really thought Obama was a socialist.
McCain didn’t have an answer and nor has any other conservative I posited that question to since. If Obama’s plan is really so dire, if it is really so Marxist, if it is really so anti-Capitalism, then why are so many of the most admired money men in the country endorsing it? (Yesterday, “The Financial Times” also endorsed Obama.)
Then McCain was played clips of himself from recent years saying almost verbatim the things Obama has been saying (spreading the wealth around, the rich should pay more, etc.). Of little surprise, McCain had no comment.
Finally, McCain was asked how his desire to nationalize the banks earlier this month wasn't a form of socialism. Instead of trying to deny it, he admitted that that’s exactly what it was. But, he added, these are desperate time and desperate times call for desperate measures.
So let me get this straight, when Obama calls for it, it's Marxist socialism, but when McCain calls for it, it's a heroic stand in the midst of an emergency situation?
McCain’s supporters can’t have it both ways. And neither can the Senator.
At the end of it all, however, I wonder why so many of my readers are up in arms. Is it personal or is it principle? Last I checked, none of my readers made more than $250,000 a year and therefore, wouldn’t pay the sort of tax increases that would supposedly be used to spread their wealth around. I guess it’s purely an altruistic gesture.
posted by Brandon at 2:53 PM
24 Comments:
I wasn't aware that anyone in the previous thread said McCain was all that much better than Obama in this regard. Indeed, many conservatives are frustrated with McCain precisely because he has a tendency to ape the liberals on stuff like this (see, e.g., here).
Of course, Joe Biden has now lowered the threshold of those who would pay new taxes to $150,000. And who knows if it will be lowered even more? Add that to his "Obama will do something very unpopular when the international community tests him and we need to stand by him, even though we said Bush needed to be abandoned when he became unpopular" remark as one of those things that might be just a gaffe or might reflect what the Obama campaign really has in mind.
You're twisting words so badly you've formed a delicious pretzel, Peter.
A couple things:
1) If McCain is no better or nearly identical to Obama in the socialism debate, that I hereby proclaim a moratorium on all discussions regarding this topic when used as a bludgeon to attack a specific candidate. To do otherwise (McCain supporters) is how we define hypocrisy.
2) Biden dropping the number to 150,000 the other day was an unintentional slip of the tongue. Obama himself accidentally said 200,000 during the third debate, I think it was. Official Obama policy is and continues to be $250,000.
3) Even though some liberals have tarred and feathered Biden for his tested remark, I don't think it was a gaffe. It sounds like "straight talk" to me. That he will be tested is true. It is also true of McCain. Besides, the Pentagon came out and said it agreed with Biden.
4) Nice to have you back at it after a long absence, Peter!
Brandon,
You need to be really careful assuming that you know how your readers feel about every topic. For your information I wasn't for what just took place concerning the banks. There are consequences for all of our actions including those of the banks to lend to people that they shouldn't have been lending to to begin with. When we went to purchase our first home we were approved for about $200,000 more than what we actually borrowed. Was that an amount we could afford, absolutely not and we knew that. We borrowed what we knew we could pay each month that wouldn't make us have to worry about how we would make the house payment. Yes, in the long run if the bail-out hadn't have happened it would have affected all of us, but the bail-out took dollars that could have been put to better use and gave them to people who need to learn that there are consequences to your actions. You also need to realize that just because a person is not going to vote for Obama that doesn't mean they agree with everything that McCain supports. Funny to me you know what your readers incomes are now to. To answer that question, it is about what other things come when we take the dive into becoming a socialist society. Next we have government sponsored and mandated pre-school. Yes, the socialists that are within our government would love nothing more than to make me send my children to preschool and school everyday so that they can feel them full of ideas that are not biblical. We will have medical care that is definately not of the quality that we are able to receive now. Those are just two things that come to mind right away. The more that the government becomes involved in the lives of people the more that the people lose their rights to make choices for themselves. I know you believe that I can't possibly know what I'm talking about since I am voting republican this election, you believe that since people who are posting on your blog are disagreeing with you and pointing out the parts of your posts that are wrong that you are educated and we are not. Maybe it is time that you realize you aren't the only one who knows what is going on in this world we live in. But, thank God you still have your freedom of speech to be able to say what you want on this blog. By the way where is your picture of President Bush in your home. Is it prominately displayed in your living room? Where is the respect for him that the bible talks of and you talk of in your previous post. I'm pretty sure if McCain is elected you won't be showing him the respect that you believe is necessary for Obama because of what they bible says because you haven't shown that to President Bush in many of your posts now. Hi pot, I'm kettle.
Andrea
I’m not assuming anything. I know conservatives aren’t over the moon about McCain. I also know that more conservatives were against the bail out than liberals. And I’ve no problem with that at all. My point is simply this — attack the issue, not the man. Many conservatives are falling in line behind this socialism thing and using it as a club to beat Obama with. Yet you and Peter and others admit that they think McCain is no less guilty. Then drop the attacks. To attack something in one candidate while ignoring the very same thing in your own is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Why is it that socialism—used by most here as a far more massive definition than is probably applicable—is so feared and loathed despite the fact that other communities and countries make it work extremely well, without impinging on the rights and freedoms of its citizens? I’ve never understood that paranoid fear.
Nor do I understand why everyone gets so offended when others disagree with them. Or imagine they are being called stupid when they are not. Contrasting views often produce diametric oppositions. Naturally one thinks it is correct and the other false. This attitude is mirrored in the other, opposing force. So to get offended or attack me for calling you stupid or uneducated, Andrea (which I have not done) is simply counter-productive and belies the fact that you think as little of my views as you imagine I think of yours.
As to my lack of respect for Bush, I’ve been waiting for someone to bring that up. I have only one thing to say about that: Guilty. As. Charged.
Brandon wrote:
1) If McCain is no better or nearly identical to Obama in the socialism debate . . .
"No better"? "Nearly identical"? I don't recall saying that. I guess you're entitled to make your own pretzels. ;)
Let's just say that there's a big difference between a guy who liberalizes his policies from time to time to look moderate and bipartisan, on the one hand, and a guy who really really believes in this stuff deep-down, on the other hand. (Yeah, for now I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, in that regard.)
2) Biden dropping the number to 150,000 the other day was an unintentional slip of the tongue.
Oh, I know. But there are slips and there are slips.
3) Even though some liberals have tarred and feathered Biden for his tested remark, I don't think it was a gaffe. It sounds like "straight talk" to me.
Well yes. If he were even straighter, he might hae given us a hint of what Obama's unpopular-but-we-gotta-support-it-anyway policy might be. (Opening another front in the war on terror? Bringing back the draft? Pulling a Kennedy and launching another Bay of Pigs, thus precipitating another Cuban Missile Crisis?) As it is, it is arguably "hypocritical", as you say, to suggest that Bush needed to abandon his policies because they had become unpopular, while expecting us to support Obama when his policies become unpopular too.
4) Nice to have you back at it after a long absence, Peter!
Yeah, well, work gets in the way, sometimes.
I’ve never understood that paranoid fear.
This, from the man who says he "assumes nothing" about other people's feelings.
As you may recall, I live in Canada, which if I'm not mistaken has been far more open to socialist principles than the United States has, at least within my lifetime. So if I oppose socialism, it is partly due to my nation's experience with it.
Nor do I understand why everyone gets so offended when others disagree with them. Or imagine they are being called stupid when they are not.
You're right, "paranoid fear" is a much nicer, less offensive, accusation.
Brandon,
If I remember correctly you have made comments on previous posts that say "to be christian you must now check your brains at the door." Have you lived in these countries that you think everything is going so wonderfully in? I think you better do a little more research. Who said I ignored anything in McCain about the bail-out, but you need to be reminded he is not the one wanting to raise taxes to spread the wealth. That is what the issue that you've been talking about has been about. Why is it that if Obama is so for spreading the wealth he only contributes less than 1 % of his income to charities. It seems that would start at home, or is waiting on the government to make him do it? Who cares what bracket he taxes, I'm opposed to him or anyone else for that matter raising taxes. Let people decide how they help people on their own. Don't worry I'm not going to keep posting! It is to time consuming, although I have enjoyed going back and forth with you. I guess I can part with the words may the best man win! I hope you and Stephanie are doing well. Please tell her hi for me. Chris said you are always asking about pictures. I just put some new ones of the kids on our blog today, so you'll have to check them out.
Andrea
Hi Brandon,
First of all, it is exciting that finally in our country, we have reached the point where a black man has a real chance of being president.
And, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated, we need to “judge” him by the content of his character and what he says rather than his ethnic background.
But he is the MOST left wing senator we have. He does not claim that he will govern as a left-center president, he claims that he will govern as a leftist. For instance, he does not deny that his plan will send income tax refunds to people who pay no income tax. Then he justifies this by stating that these people deserve it because they pay payroll taxes. Two different pots there.
There is a big difference between a conservative like McCain who bucks the conservatives now and then and a left wing candidate. I do not even need to prove this to you. Obama has already proven it for me. I don’t know what you’re seeing in NY, but here in one of the swing states, Obama has a lot of commercials running. In both the commercials and his stump speeches he draws clear distinctions between himself and McCain.
So, you can’t have it both ways. Obama tries to tie McCain to Bush, and then turns around and says that McCain’s policies are a lot like his.
Which is it? Do you really believe that McCain and Obama are similar in their political and philosophical outlook? According to Obama they are not. McCain, for all of his maverick McCain-ness, still operates from a conservative context. Which is why the media turned on him. They like him when he, as the maverick, stands up to the conservatives, but ditch him because Obama gives them a tingle up their legs. (I’m still wondering how that happens).
BTW, when has Obama ever been a maverick to the liberals? His change is a lock step leftist government with one of the worst leaders of our time, Pelosi, to back him up. And the media in our country approaches him like the Pravda approached their leadership, only they never said they got a tingle up their legs doing it.
But he is the MOST left wing senator we have. He does not claim that he will govern as a left-center president, he claims that he will govern as a leftist. There is a big difference between a conservative like McCain who bucks the conservatives now and then and a left wing candidate.
Well what do you expect him to govern as? He's a liberal. Never tried to hide it. You act like you've uncovered something! I take your meaning though--you simply disagree with (his) liberal policies. Fair enough.
I don’t know what you’re seeing in NY, but here in one of the swing states, Obama has a lot of commercials running. And one of them claims, and quotes, McCain as having voted as Bush did 90% of the time. So, you can’t have it both ways. Obama tries to tie McCain to Bush, and then turns around and says that McCain’s policies are a lot like his. Which is it? Do you really believe that McCain and Obama are similar in their political and philosophical outlook? According to Obama they are not.
I don't get what you're saying. What "both ways"? You simply said Obama is saying McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time, a charge McCain does not dispute. What is what? No, McCain and Obama are not similar (other than the fact that the issue that spurred this e-mail is that on this particular issue--and I've no doubt there are others--McCain believed the same thing Obama did--spreading the wealth around. That's all I'm saying. And, and tragically, I'm now in DC, not NYC.
McCain, for all of his maverick McCain-ness, still operates from a conservative context. Which is why the media turned on him. They like him when he, as the maverick, stands up to the conservatives, but ditch him because Obama gives them a tingle up their legs. (I’m still wondering how that happens).
Politico came out with a study today saying that the media has reported far more negatively on McCain than Obama. However--some perspective. A few months back, an independent group came up with exactly the opposite conclusion. The answer: they are both right. Up until about a month or so ago, McCain was getting even more favorable press than Obama. Then what happened. McCain shut himself and his VP off COMPLETELY to press. That limited access limited favorable stories. McCain used to be a press darling and called them "his base." Then he spurned them and attacked them. And, can anyone out there seriously argue with me that the McCain campaign hasn't completely gone of the rails the past month and some? Even if you like McCain and want him to win, you have to admit that his campaign has imploded of late while Obama's has run a tight, efficient, transcendent ship. This is what you are seeing reflected in the majority of mainstream press. (I'm not counting the fire-breathers on either side in the equation--Druge, Huffington, etc.)
BTW, when has Obama ever been a maverick to the liberals? His change is a lock step leftist government with one of the worst leaders of our time, Pelosi, to back him up. And the media in our country approaches him like the Pravda approached their leadership, only they never said they got a tingle up their legs doing it.
Who said he has to be? So McCain is a maverick (or used to be). Good for him. Does it automatically follow that all other candidates must be as well. (If it makes you feel any better, I've never like Pelosi or Reed either!)
The both ways are that Obama claims that McCain and his policies are very different. Do you not think that Obama will attempt to lead this country towards a European Socialism?
I think that Politico’s study must be amazingly skewed. Even the Clinton’s complained about media bias to Obama. That is way before McCain and Obama were going head to head. Do you deny the love affair between Obama and the press? They have went after Palin like a hound dog. Very well, that is their job (although they went too far I believe). And Palin showed that she is an apprentice. Is it a rare thing to have a VP candidate that is a president in training as it were? Anyway, the press has not questioned or researched Obama nearly as much as Palin, and she is only a VP candidate. Honestly, there does not even appear to be a veiled attempt at objective, tough questioning of Obama.
I AGREE that McCain’s campaign has been, I wouldn’t say off the rails, but going a bit awry of late shall I say.
I do believe that he is still the maverick, and like all candidates, he is trying to broaden his appeal. So has Obama, he doesn’t talk the same now as he did when he was speaking to his fellow liberal idealogues in the democratic nomination.
The reason why I hold Obama to needing to be a maverick is because he claims to be an agent of change and one that will shake up things in Washington. But there is not a shred of evidence that he will be that at all. He has had opportunities in the past and has been a party line kind of guy. So, what I hear when he says unite and change is: He is a cool guy and if you don’t agree with him you’re not a uniter. And the change will be towards a European Socialism kind of government.
No thanks.
As to Pelosi and Reid (and Barney?) perhaps we can agree that the Democrats would be better served with different leaders. For that matter, I would very much like to see much better leadership from the Republicans as well. Congress right now looks very pathetic to me…
"Why is it that socialism—used by most here as a far more massive definition than is probably applicable—is so feared and loathed despite the fact that other communities and countries make it work extremely well, without impinging on the rights and freedoms of its citizens? I’ve never understood that paranoid fear."
Here is why I am paranoid about socialism:
1. Being harrassed in Tienamen Square for being in the presence of a small protest. The police there were rattled that I happened to be there in the first place.
2. Being harrassed Russia for taking night photographs in Red Square a few years ago.
3. Witnessing the effects of socialism in the occupied countries of Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, and East Germany. Visiting concentration camps and talking to individuals who had been deported to work in "work" camps in Siberia. Talking to my friends in Poland, and meeting some notable example of the "younger" generation that can still remember what bread lines were. And then dealing with insipid spoiled American backpackers in Europe, espousing the greatness and superiority of Europe, while at the same time, downplaying and allowing their liberal guilt to bash their own home country. Give me a break. Nothing, I mean NOTHING annoys me more than people than Americans that BLINDLY bash their own country, without taking into consideration, soberly, the negative aspects of the country that they are visiting. In my travels through Europe, I have only met one person (a Canadian, mind you) who was self-critical about their own country.
4. Seeing first hand, the squalor of the hospitals in Sicily, where socialized medicine is the rule, not the exception.
5. Observing the degradation of facilities and infrastructure outside the large cities in China. Where the poor of China, have lack of access to running water and basic necessities - while our poor (in the USA) gets fat on fast food, watching cable TV, and taking welfare from a state that has created wards out of them.
6. Reading newspapers in China, knowing the distinct possibility that the "real" truth is not getting out to the public. (The same can be said for our media, which has been tossing Obama's proverbial salad, and will remain that way throughout his term as president, God forbid he gets elected.)
There are other examples that I could cite probably, but I am too flustered to remember anything more now.
Brandon, do you remember the stark difference between East and West Berlin when we were there in 2000? How can you vouch for a system that has proven itself to be a slippery slope to taking away an individual's personal liberties, EVERY TIME IT IS TRIED? Why are countries like Germany, South Korea, Japan, and I daresay in the next ten years, Iraq the benefitiary of the exportation of our culture and ideal of individualistic freedoms?
And it cannot be denied that any countries that you will inevitable defend for their socialist safety nets - they all were able to develop and thrive first and foremost, under the protection of the United States during the Cold War.
I refuse to go with that line of thinking that the state is better at handling my own personal freedoms better than myself.
And it cannot be denied that any countries that you will inevitable defend for their socialist safety nets - they all were able to develop and thrive first and foremost, under the protection of the United States during the Cold War.
Israel: When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;
13 Then thou shalt say before the LORD thy God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of mine house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all thy commandments which thou hast commanded me: I have not transgressed thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them.
14 I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I taken away ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given ought thereof for the dead: but I have hearkened to the voice of the LORD my God, and have done according to all that thou hast commanded me.
15 Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
16 This day the LORD thy God hath commanded thee to do these statutes and judgments: thou shalt therefore keep and do them with all thine heart, and with all thy soul.
Socialist aspects of our country:
Public Libraries, Postal Service, FAA, FDC, FCC, minimum wage, 40 hour work weeks, Bush's $800 billion pharm legislation for seniors, medicare, public education, national parks, unemployment insurance, maternity leave, pensions...to name a few.
-Socialism does not equal communism
In my travels through Europe, I have only met one person (a Canadian, mind you) who was self-critical about their own country.
You must have been talking to the wrong people, because its been my experience whether it be France, South Africa, or Australia that their citizens, while proud of their country are usually the first to be critical of it.
As far as the Cold War I found this intriguing: "Some might argue that what was really at stake in the Cold War was a battle over freedom, not just a clash between the economic ideologies of capitalism and communism. It's certainly true that the Soviet Union was far more oppressive than the United States was. On the other hand, that didn't seem to matter so much during World War II, when we were happy to ally with Uncle Joe Stalin himself in order to squash those, er, other totalitarians. And - on the other, other hand - it didn't seem to matter so much during the Cold War either, when we backed every repressive neocolonialist regime we could find, from Nicaragua to South Africa to Vietnam and back again. Or when we simply installed our own - in Iran, Guatemala or Chile - if the existing government was a little too, um... free and, er... democratic."
But the most fun fact of the day:
The top 1% of income earners in america today control over 60% of all assets in the United States.
Which has continued to increase dramatically as more and more legislation and tax policy has been enacted in the spirit of capitalism and free enterprise.
This says one of two things: Either there has been a dramatic drop in people willing to work hard in America, hence the concentration of wealth or Republican "free market" policies are streamlined to make the rich, richer: or has been said "socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor".
Thanks Grinth! That's the post I no longer need to write. Come on Matt, you know better than to insist socialism equals communism. And yes, it is working, from countries in Europe to Scandinavia to pockets of America (Amish).
Oh and Grinth, good reminder on tithes!
Speaking of "hypocrisy"...:
Barack Obama’s ‘Less Fortunate’ Kin
Back in August at the presidential candidate forum organized by Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church, Barack Obama said that America’s "greatest moral failure" during his lifetime has been its inattention to "the least of my brothers." He specifically cited poverty as an issue that Americans have ignored by "not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class."
It was bad enough that Obama’s answer twisted the context of a passage in Matthew 25. Now comes word that he has been playing the hypocrite, too. The aunt and uncle that Obama mentioned fondly in his memoir "Dreams From My Father" reportedly are living in squalor somewhere in Boston even as he chides "America" for not supporting its "brothers."
Obama needs to flip back a few pages in his Bible to Matthew 7, a favorite of liberals who don’t want to be judged for their sins. Just insert the word "country" where it says "brother" . . .
Brandon wrote:
Come on Matt, you know better than to insist socialism equals communism. And yes, it is working, from countries in Europe to Scandinavia to pockets of America (Amish).
The Amish are a nation-state?
In any case, it seemed to me that Matthew did cite non-Communist examples of socialism. The hospital in Sicily, for example.
Oh and Grinth, good reminder on tithes!
This, from the man who rails against "theocracy"!
Oh, and Grinth, I'm sure you know that some of the examples of "socialism" that you cited have been criticized by some conservatives. Bush's decision to give free drugs to all seniors, and not merely the ones who were hard up for cash, is a classic example.
Brandon wrote:
Obama himself accidentally said 200,000 during the third debate, I think it was. Official Obama policy is and continues to be $250,000.
Turns out you were wrong when you wrote that. Four days earlier, Obama clearly stated in an ad that went up on YouTube ('Defining Moment') that the figure is now only $200,000. It's there in his speech, and it's there on the screen.
Kind of makes you wonder how much lower it will get, and how soon, doesn't it?
And of course, this figure applies to families, and not to individuals per se, so if you have a husband and a wife making more than $100,000 each, then they'd be over that newly-lowered threshold.
Yeah, it turns out I was. You beat me to it. It's now 200,000. I wonder why he was forced to do that? It couldn't have been the nearly 1 trillion dollar bailout could it have been. I wonder...
A bailout necessitated, in part, by Obama's policies and political allies, etc., yeah. If we can spread the wealth around, we can spread the blame around, too. ;)
"Come on Matt, you know better than to insist socialism equals communism. And yes, it is working, from countries in Europe to Scandinavia to pockets of America (Amish)."
Sure, it can work. In a perfect world. But don't ask anyone from Iceland if it works. The government did a piss poor job of investing the people's money and look what happened. I have a friend at work who's wife is an Icelandic citizen and he's telling me the story of her not able to withdraw money from her bank to pay for food and basic services. Yay for socialism!
With the exception of what is stricly bound in the Constitution of the United States, the federal government needs to get out of the lives of the ordinary citizen. Period. And with this goverment "bailout" that is exactly what has happened. Nothing great can come out of this. It might help us in some way or another, but in such a backwards way that it will always in the end, hurt the little guy, trying to move up the economic ladder.
Want the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor? Vote for Obama.
I just can't do it. I can't vote for Obama. I am not one of those people that will benefit from Obama's tax sceme. I own property that is making a profit, I am part of the populace that wants to move up the societal ladder. There is a slippery slope that I am climbing, and I am more apt to get caught on the downslip as I move up in the coming years, if liberal economic policies become the rule, instead of the exception. It is NOT more patriotic to pay more taxes. It is patriotic to CREATE weath, and CREATE jobs through the private sector. And my personal accomplishments in this year alone only cements my views on conservatism. I am definitely a "center-right" kind of guy.
Oh, and Grinth, I'm sure you know that some of the examples of "socialism" that you cited have been criticized by some conservatives. Bush's decision to give free drugs to all seniors, and not merely the ones who were hard up for cash, is a classic example.
Of course: I didn't put any qualifiers as to which "socialist" items listed were good or bad.
Conversely, there are aspects of capitalism that can be criticized. No economic model is perfect, despite America's tendency to think otherwise.
This issue at hand, and motive for the original post by Brandon, is that Republicans and Democrats alike espouse various tenants of socialism. Therefore, it is disingenuous of Republicans to suggest Obama equals socialism/communism while Republicans are the paragon of freedom and capitalism.
Tee hee, he said "tenants of socialism". :)
Will their rent go up or down under Obama, I wonder? :)
More seriously, part of the distinction here -- certainly where the present campaigns are concerned -- may be that Republicans tend to see socialism as an emergency measure, whereas Democrats tend to take it for granted that socialism is how things should be done all the time (especially if it favours certain communities).
Ha! This is what I get for posting at work and before the coffee has kicked in.
may be that Republicans tend to see socialism as an emergency measure
This is where we disagree.
For example, one of my favorite Palin quotes:
"we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs."
Problem on the Republican vice-presidential nomination test:
"Spread the wealth" is to communism as "Collectively share the wealth" is to:
A) Conservative Capitalism
B) acceptable socialism
C) Don't question Republicans
Post a Comment
<< Home