Home › Blogs › TX Politico's blog ›

O'Donnell: Entitlements are Socialist

Submitted by TX Politico on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 08:27
in

If you can make it through the puerile and prurient ravings of David Shuster, sitting in for the normally oh-so-(mentally)-balanced Keith Olbermann, you find this nugget at 5:50 into the 8-minute-long stream of sexual jokes:

Lawrence O'Donnell, "[Medicare and Social Security] are well-working Socialist programs within the American government.  There's absolutely no other description of them."

Nice to hear a liberal admit this instead of trying to pretend these programs are anything but government taking from some to give to others.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

taking up the cause of providing for the rich

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 11:31.

Yeah, like how the Bush administration raided social security to help pay for it's initial tax cut for the rich.

How the oil companies and pharmacutical industries recieved billions in welfare from George Bush.

How the top 1% saw their tax rate decrease under conservative governance while their share of the wealth doubled, while the Social Security tax was raised 6% in that time, with median incomes falling.

The socialism of the last 30 years benefited the wealthy.

Middle income conservatives take up the cause of destroying their own safety net to provide one for the rich.

BRILLIANT!

Is this news to somebody?

Submitted by acinphx on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 12:52.

I've never heard a 'liberal' claim these aren't socialist in nature.  Perhaps the success of these programs (to date, anyway) is why the GOP scaremongering on 'socialism' is losing its lustre?

I'ev been anxiously waiting for the GOP's proposal to rid us of these socialist schemes. 

What?  I'm waiting in vain?  I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn that the same GOP that approved an expansion of these socialist schemes in the form of Medicare Part D does not have a credible plan to eliminate or at least keep these programs solvent. 

How could that be?  Surely it couldn't be because these programs have generally worked for the intended purposes and are popular with almost all Americans?  Surely it wouldn't be because it would require a principled effort to educate the public on why these socialist programs are unsustainable in the long run, rather than screeching the 'socialist' charge and hoping it sticks?  Surely it wouldn't be because they're afraid to lose votes?

I'm confused.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Thu, 04/23/2009 - 18:31.

You mean that socialism isn't really Communism-Lite?  But actually a hallmark of the well-functionally, highly-successful societies across the planet.  Post-Bush, I could proudly proclaim myself a socialist in America and be taken seriously, if I wanted to.  And somehow people think Bush as something other than a complete and utter disaster for America and for the Republican Party.

So many trolls, so little time

Submitted by TX Politico on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 14:52.

I haven't been around this site for a while and I guess I had not realized how many trolls had invaded. . . .