Young Conservative Movement

No, he didn't say he was a socialist, and yes, as a conservative, I think it is scary that John McCain also misquoted Barack Obama. (This is why many conservatives are disassociating themselves with McCain). He said, as you said above, that when the economy is good for the folks on the bottom, it is good for EVERYBODY. This is true, historically speaking. Stock values go up, demand goes up, etc. Why do we lie to the middle class and say that their taxes will go up, when they will not. Barack's plan gives more tax cuts than Reagan and Bush Sr. It is not right, for the sake of being "fair". It is an investment that will generate more wealth for the upper class and bring more people into the middle class, which will generate more wealth for the upper class.I am sick of the lies and threats being spewed from my own party, which have no validity!

This is not a misquote. This is from the mouth of Barack Obama. WATCH THE VIDEO!

You are surmising that he is a socialist from his words, but he did not say he was a socialist.

Again, you are taking the perspective, but folks can debate whether that phrase defines his entire platform.

Spreading wealth around is socialism.

"You use that word...I don't think it means what you think it means."

Merriam Webster defines socialism as:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."

What Barack is advocating for in that particular statement is progressive taxation as opposed to regressive taxation.

I am not surprised by your confusion regarding these terms, as they are coming from a movement which has come to disdain intellectual thought....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

In the Marxian tradition socialism means the end of expropriation of surplus value from labour by capitalists. If markets are needed more to coordinate economic activity than to provide incentives to workers and managers, socialism could be achieved by more equal distribution of share ownership with restrictions on cashing in shares. Social homogeneity may be a necessary condition for the democratic implementation of egalitarian programs through redistribution, if the welfare state is motivated by either a purely redistributive or an insurance function. Hence the challenge to implementing socialism posed by multiculturalism.

http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_S000449

Yes, that would fall under the third definition...however, under the Marxian tradition, socialism usually occurs as a transition period following the revolution. Again, I believe you don't know what the term "socialism" means.

It largely has to do with government ownership and/or control of institutions (even under the Marxist tradition)rather then merely a redistribution of wealth. Given this definition, both candidates have advocated for socialism by voting for the bail out/rescue plan for Wall Street in which the government is taking ownership of private business.

If socialism, as you define it, is merely the redistribution of wealth, you can argue that Sarah Palin is a socialist because she imposed windfall profit taxes on oil companies.

As I stated before, Barack is advocating for progressive taxation, which should not be confused with "socialism." I know my remarks will not change your mind, despite having the weight of reason on my side. I also know your are primarily using through your this highly loaded word to scare people into agreeing with you. However, your use of the term is not an accurate portrayal of the above quotation.

It is not a word I am using this term as a means of scaring people. I am trying to show the world that Barack Obama wants to "spread the wealth around" He wants to punish success. "Progessive Taxation" is sugar coating this. The idea that socialism is only socialism when there is a revolution is ridiculous.

What happens if someone has a down period financially (over several years) and has to take a bunch of loans out to get by... then they get a really good year and can finally pay off their debt... instead they pay uncle sam.

What is the motivation to try if you are going to get subsidized for sitting around twiddling your thumbs?

The encylopedia britanica says:

According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members.

The wealthy in this country would be working for the "greater good"

The idea of a Marxist society is very alluring. In today's world of freedom and fairness, the notion of everyone being completely equal, even if this means taking from the rich and giving to the poor, seems just; however, the defect in Marxism is obvious. It is dependent on a type of human nature that is hard to come by. For Marxism to work, very little greed and jealosy can exist and people must have a general feeling of charity and a willingness to work their hardest for the good of everyone. These are obviously not common traits. Marxism could also work if those who have the greatest abilities and those who work the hardest are satisfied with rewards equivalent to those with lesser abilities and those who don't work hard at all. This is also very unlikely. Marxism undoubtedly leads to free riding and slacking.

http://www.fundamentalfinance.com/blogs/socialism-vs-capitalism.php

SOCIALISM from the American Heritage Dictionary:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

I never said that a revolution needs to occur before a revolution takes place. However, the definition you give beginning with "In the Marxian Tradition" does, in fact, require a revolution to take place. Marx was, after all, about revolutions.

Lets put this is in simple terms.

socialism=government control of an institution
progressive taxation=as wealth increases, taxation increases

Even in your various definitions, socialism is defined as "collective ownership." For example the American Heritage Dictionary "owned collectively or by a centralized government" or in the Encyclopedia Britanica: "Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members." Also, socialism can only be applied to particular instututions. For example Brittan's National Health Service is an example of "socialized medicine" because it is controlled by the government.

There is a profound difference between progressive taxation and socialism.

For example, a socialist might say to Joe the Plumber, "You will be employed by the National Plumbing Service, a government run organization that fixes people toilets when they break."

Barack said as your wealth increases, so will your taxes. The following link shows what Obama's progressive tax plan looks like...drawn to scale:
http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/taxplans/

You accuse me of sugarcoating, when I am in fact being accurate. Before I thought it was that you "didn't know" what socialism is...now I am starting to think you "cannot know"