Comments on: You Can’t be Half-Socialist (Guest Voice)

By: LGelbart

LGelbart — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:02:42 +0000

Let me take a moment out of breakfasting on nothing but caviar, to remind Master (good taste forces me to use the diminutive) Reagan that what we have now is socialism for the rich. And that I wouldn't sell a used car to him or his father.

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:21:45 +0000

BTW, I forgot to add that McCain's plan to buy up bad mortgages and renegotiate the terms so that owners could stay in their homes falls way to the left of anything Obama has come up with! But that doesn't fit into your partisan worldview does it?

By: kritt11

kritt11 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:12:45 +0000

All countries are a mix of capitalism and socialism. If you have a progressive tax system- that is socialism. Michael. even McCain does not favor a flat tax, and did not originally favor the George W Bush tax cuts. Either you are just trying to get attention like Ann Coulter or you've gone completely off the deep end. Being a liberal is not the same as being a Communist, a Marxist or a Socialist.

We have had unadulterated rule by the markets for 8 years now with huge tax breaks for corporations and wealthy individuals. Not only does it not trickle down to the middle and lower classes, it doesn't even work for corporate America.

By: edverb

edverb — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:04:14 +0000

Barack Obama is talking about things voters care about — education, energy independence, creating jobs, middle class tax cuts…and Michael Reagan is talking about Hollywood writers, the Gestapo (!), stacks of Korans, and poorly conceived car analogies that go on for too long.

In this battle of ideas, Mr. Reagan comes equipped with little more than his last name and a badly written collection of right wing bugaboos.

By: DLS

DLS — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:38:52 +0000

What's more foolish is the overreaction to this.

Milton Friedman correctly stated that our nation is roughly half socialized if you define this broadly or generally as being subject to government intervention, interference, or control. And people certainly can be less than 100% socialist. Even in the Soviet Union there was a concept (albeit very limited!) of private property (about which the State cared little, in fact).

By: SteveK

SteveK — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:06:09 +0000

Looks like we've had another attack by the “Anonymous Down-rater“… too funny!

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:51:31 +0000

Any pretentious partisan fool could have written this. The only reason Reagan gets a soapbox is because of his name. He's just another in a long line of reactionaries trying to get mileage from misusing a word.

By: SteveK

SteveK — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:13:03 +0000

It would be nice to see some of other brothers (Ron, the smart, thoughtful one) comments here, too.

By: davigoli

davigoli — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:35:25 +0000

Why does anyone even give this guy a column? Oh yeah, it's so we can all see on the face how ridiculous and outdated his ideas are.

Thanks for bolstering the credibility of liberal social-democratic hybrid policies by transparently flimsy, false-dichotomous arguments, Mr. Reagan.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:01:19 +0000

Just anotherr case of typical Michaerthysm and McCairthysm

By: Amanda

Amanda — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:47:38 +0000

Geez. Michael needs a chill pill and a reality check. I can think of 3 programs off the top of my head that, technically speaking, are socialist. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have been on the books for decades, yet they haven't forced America into a full-blow Marxist state. Pure communism and socialism don't work – anyone who's at all familiar with 20th century history knows this. But that doesn't mean that certain aspects of socialism can't be blended into a capitalist, democratic society for the benefit of the entire nation.