WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE "S" WORD? PART I

You are to be commended for at least trying to give a rationale for the "socialist" epithet. But remember, asked if he was a socialist by that liberal MSM institution, the New York Timnes, Obama denied it. And you still oversimplify. By your standards, most of the European countries are socialist, and yet many of them have high per capita income. Why do I say that you call us socialist? Because large majorities of our population accept that the strong should carry more - as, incidentally, Adam Smith did. (http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c2-pt-2.htm). The free market produces boom and bust cycles, it produces income inequalities that go far beyond the lazy and the uneducated. You tell me why a policeman or a nurse should earn a fraction of Hollywood mogule Rob Reiner and porn king Larry Flynt. Was it your friend's fault that she got fired from the bank or was it incompetent management? Now, I concede, the more social protection you put in place, the more people who do not deserve it get undeserved advantages. But why should José's children suffer for their father's deeds?
Furthermore, I haven't heard that anybody plans to take your apartment away to compensate your painter. That is a canard that would only be justified if the Obama people were really after socialism. But funny that people like Alan Greenspan and Lindsey Graham think that nationalizing banks is an option? Are they socialist?

I appreciate your comments, but you have made some generalizations that won't wash. When you "nationalize" something -- whether it is a bak or an apartment building -- you are taking it away from the original owner. Also, the European republics are not full socialist. Thay have adopted the portions of socialism that remained after more thoroughgoing socialization failed. So, we have rationed healthcare where people routinely die while awaiting treatment, virtual apartheid as in France where Muslims live in near ghetto conditions with no employment, and ecomomies which, while still in the upper 30% worldwide are nevertheless undeniably declining year by year. And, if I wanted to argue the point, no, Jose's children shouldn't suffer because he hasn't done much with his life. But what is the lesson when the poor continue to have children that the rest of us are expected to care for? This piece really isn't about who deserves what. It's about whether socialism is a pragmatic option for the USA. And it isn't!