I stole this, in its entirety, from Patrick at Eternityisaday. Well worth a read.

Obama's Economic Policy: Socialist or Progressive?
I had originally planned to devote this post to the issues of abortion and Supreme Court nominations, but those issues will have to wait, because I can't let another day go by without addressing McCain's ongoing efforts to turn this election into a choice between "socialism" and "capitalism." I'll give McCain credit: the "Joe the Plumber" stunt has unleashed a tidal wave of conservative fear-mongering, particularly among demographics who still haven't moved beyond the Cold War. But McCain's efforts to portray Obama as a socialist have only solidified my belief that McCain does not have the integrity to lead our country. If Obama's tax policies were truly "socialist," then McCain would have some serious explaining to do concerning his own "socialist" tendencies over the past 8 years:



Continuing with George W. Bush's legacy, McCain's campaign seems to be guided by the belief that the average voter is persuaded more by fear than reason. Rather than rationally explaining why a proposed 3% increase on the top-5% income bracket would be a bad idea for the economy, McCain's campaign has resorted to McCarthyism by insinuating that Obama is conspiring with terrorists to become the world's next Stalin.

I would love for McCain and his supporters to explain why Obama's tax plan is any more "socialist" than Reagan's earned-income tax credit, or any different than McCain's proposed health care credit, both of which intentionally redistribute wealth by giving low-income Americans a tax credit which, in some cases, exceeds the amount of taxes paid by the recipients. I don't know whether to be more outraged by McCain's hypocrisy or terrified by his disconnection from reality.When McCain actually attempts to discuss the specifics of Obama's tax plan, he seems to focus almost exclusively on the effect Obama's plan would have on small businesses, despite the fact that Obama's plan would only affect about 10% of all small businesses, and in some cases, would even reduce some small businesses' taxes:

FactCheck.org: "McCain's Small Business Bunk"

In reality, Obama's proposed tax rates would be almost identical to the rates established during Bill Clinton's first term (a time when our economy was thriving by today's standards). Although a lot of economic growth during Clinton's presidency might be attributed to technology growth, it is difficult to argue with the fact that the country enjoyed more economic prosperity during Clinton's presidency than during any of the five Republican presidential terms since 1980. It is also difficult to argue with the fact that the superior economic growth during Clinton's presidency is consistent with the superior economic growth during all Democratic presidencies since 1947 as compared to Republican presidencies:

NY Times: "Is History Siding With Obama's Economic Plan?

As even most conservatives would concede, a robust middle class is vital to any democracy. Over the past 8 years, however, the wealthiest 5% of our nation has flourished, while the middle class has rapidly diminished. This disparity has only snowballed over the past several months. Ultimately, "trickle-down" economic policies have resulted in "trickle-up" redistribution of wealth.Anyone who has spent any significant time in a developing country will tell you: when wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a few people, the rule of law loses its relevance, citizens become alienated, and democracies die. In his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith espoused a progressive tax based on the same rationale adopted by Obama (and John McCain, at least up until a few weeks ago). In Adam Smith's own words:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."

Unfortunately, all of the controversy surrounding the "patriotism" of Obama's tax policy obscures a larger question: which president is more capable of handling the present economic crisis and responding to the future crises that will almost undoubtedly occur in the near future? I don't expect any candidate for president to be a world-renowned economist, and I certainly don't believe that the fate of the economy rests solely on who eats breakfast in the White House, but I do expect a president to have enough discernment to surround himself with competent advisors and exhibit enough intelligence to make informed decisions based on the input he receives from those advisors. Interestingly, most economists, including most Republican economists, think Obama is more capable than McCain in this area:

The Economist: "Examining the Candidates"

I'll admit: part of the reason I don't trust McCain to surround himself with quality advisors is McCain's troubling selection of Palin for his VP. But I also believe, for the reasons explained in my "Ability vs. Experience" post, that Obama is simply smarter and more talented than McCain. I'm also satisfied by the long list of respected economists and financial experts, including America's wealthiest taxpayer, Warren Buffett, who will advise Obama on economic matters:

List of Obama's Economic Advisors/Supporters

I don't think anyone believes the economy will recover overnight, regardless of who wins the election, but one thing is certain: when I cast my vote on November 4, I won't be questioning my patriotism, and I won't be worrying about whether or not I'm voting for a "socialist." And neither will Warren Buffett.