Brian,
Just wondering if you if you did few take a moment to look at the historical tax rate data in the link that I posted. No one in his worst nightmare can imagine the tax rates under Obama would be anywhere close to as redistributive as they were in the 40's through 1980. I wasn't around in the 50's, but I don't think this was a socialist country then, and and don't remember hearing that people referred to each other as "komrad" under Truman and Eisenhower. The state has been interventionist and redistributive to varying degrees for much of the past century, and even if Obama were able to enact most of his program (which is unlikely) we would still be well within historical ranges of goverment activism, with no reason to believe that we are heading towards socialism.
I noticed that you refer to Orwell in you signature line - It is obvious to me what he would have though of attempts to label a modest adjustment in taxes and government social programs as "socialism." This is a good example of Newspeak - a reduction of the range of terms used so that thoughts are simplified, conclusions arrived at easily, and critical thought stifled. For me, calling Obama a "socialist" is equivalent the tendency of some on the left of the spectrum to irresponsibly refer to their opponents on the right as "fascists."
To put it another way, are those who label Obama a socialist really trying to get me to believe that a candidate who proposes a top income tax rate of 35% is not a socialist and one who proposes a rate of 39% is?
As for those who are concerned about the intrusiveness of the government under Obama, have you taken a look at the rules just enacted by Bush increasing the power of the FBI to gather information on us, even if we are not under investigation for a specific offence?
Dave
