obama promotes socialism

No, you're doing fine. It's just that generally when someone makes a claim, they express the way they got to that conclusion. In any case, you make a reasonable point bringing up Senator Obama's spread the wealth comment and I can't refute that on it's face but we can fall back on my earlier comments on progressive taxes and I will be able to extend the argument to include the Earned Income Tax Credit. The manner in which Senator Obama would intend to carry out his devious socialistic plan isn't any radical than any previous President or Congress. Like I said before, the progressive income tax is stiffly institutionalized and supported by most federal policy makers. It has always been that those with more pay a higher rate to subsidize programs that benefit those with less. Are food stamps socialist? Unemployment Insurance? SCHIP? I don't think so, but let's concede that they are. The implication is that everyone who voted for those programs would also be socialists. Indeed those with more have more and those with less have less. In the October 20, 2008 Wall Street Journal, Greg Ip writes, "The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at the peak of the previous bull market in stocks. The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a bit less than their 13% share in 2000." Without going into the statistical world of the tax implications of this, we can pose the normative question that, if someone makes so much more, why shouldn't they pay more? There is no need to delve into the philosophical underpinnings of progressive taxation, but throughout the 20th century, that was the general rule of thumb. We spent that money on creating the most educated work force in the world, massive public works projects, creating a social safety net, and had the benefit of society in mind. There is also the Earned Income Tax Credit, passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. Literally, the government pays you for working. If you make under a certain amount, the government will subsidize your income for working. Run a google search for that program and you will see page after page of glowing endorsements of the program, some even calling it the "most effective anti poverty program in the country." Are the Republicans who favor this program socialist for supporting an obviously redistributive program? My growing argument, it seems, is that many people in today's America have a very ideological view of how things ought to work. They aren't policy people, and they just think of what they've been taught to believe and then rigorously apply their ideology to programs and other ideas. It is a dichotomous way of looking at things that does not create effective policy for America. When we are addressing policy, the best way to do it is with numbers and pragmatism. Ideology and emotion will not provide a good public policy base that benefits anyone. Senator Obama is no more of a socialist than anyone preceding him. He has worked with the disadvantaged and has learned that the most effective way to help them is through the tax code. There won't be any large bureaucracies created, no more civil servants. He will, quite literally, help the people help themselves. If he were talking about creating massive new government programs, I dare say we wouldn't see these claims of socialism even though they would probably be more socialistic. You also haven't addressed the question of Adam Smith being socialist either.