Obama

[musical marv]

Is Obama a Socialist?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If he got everything hes asked for, then yes, or it could be argued very strongly for him to be.
The problem is, the spins been going on for so long, and so hard, hes never had to get together, even within his own camp, as they just follow along.

This will be his testing ground here, to see how comfortable he is when he will have to be pulled away from the things he wants to do, and actually have to compromise, for the sake of the rest of the nation, not just 52% of it.
So far, he hasn't shown the capacity to do so, and what he has argued is, a very socialist type of argument, or, money distributions thru so called fairness, or whatever you brand it as, as this is what all socialists do, and get the people behind them to do it.
With record taxes coming in, the highest corporate rates in the world, and to say we don't have a spending problem, and then selling the idea that government itself is the answer, therefore no spending problems, only revenue (taxes) problems is a socialist attitude

 

[chunkymonster]

I would call Obama a Distributive Egalitarian before I called him a Socialist.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Whats the premise of socialism?
And how do socialists achieve this goal?

 

[johnsonma]

Look at a socialist country and their policies, then look at Obama's policies. Some may be close together but he is far away from a true socialist.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Socialism dispenses monies evenly for various government controlled privileges, right?
It has equal access.Right?
Its done to basically remove the higher profiteering from the wealthy, to be distributed equally amongst everyone.
The same holds for business activities as well, where monopolies exist, but only for the government, and severe penalties for businesses that hold huge shares of a market.
You can point to Hugo Chavez as th latest, as he would literally be walking down the street and point out a business that was to be socialized.
Picking favorites skirts all this very closely, and allows for cronyism as well, if not done in a broader sense, where a majority from all areas of the country are represented.
Now we all know where Obama has either skirted,acted or desired for much of this.

The problem is, as we see the economy as it is, and Obamas attitudes towards spending, his record of spending, where those monies have gone, and how they were dispensed, you do have a strong argument here that yes, he has strong tendencies towards socialism.
Now, one may move the goalposts and assume these are wise moves, accepting that distributing huge sums to a chosen few, with direct ties to Obama, having created the single largest spending bill since social security or welfare, new tech ventures solving energy problems etc, but remember this, this is all being done with a bad economy, what would it be with a great one?
Certainly those numbers would be escalated by huge amounts, as it is, we cant keep up, what if it weren't so?
This is the strongest argument we have concerning Obama and his socialist tendencies, even if you agree with the philosophy, this is the way it would be, and only strengthens the arguement

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Socialism dispenses monies evenly for various government controlled privileges, right?
It has equal access.Right?
Its done to basically remove the higher profiteering from the wealthy, to be distributed equally amongst everyone.
The same holds for business activities as well, where monopolies exist, but only for the government, and severe penalties for businesses that hold huge shares of a market.
You can point to Hugo Chavez as th latest, as he would literally be walking down the street and point out a business that was to be socialized.
Picking favorites skirts all this very closely, and allows for cronyism as well, if not done in a broader sense, where a majority from all areas of the country are represented.
Now we all know where Obama has either skirted,acted or desired for much of this.

The problem is, as we see the economy as it is, and Obamas attitudes towards spending, his record of spending, where those monies have gone, and how they were dispensed, you do have a strong argument here that yes, he has strong tendencies towards socialism.
Now, one may move the goalposts and assume these are wise moves, accepting that distributing huge sums to a chosen few, with direct ties to Obama, having created the single largest spending bill since social security or welfare, new tech ventures solving energy problems etc, but remember this, this is all being done with a bad economy, what would it be with a great one?
Certainly those numbers would be escalated by huge amounts, as it is, we cant keep up, what if it weren't so?
This is the strongest argument we have concerning Obama and his socialist tendencies, even if you agree with the philosophy, this is the way it would be, and only strengthens the arguement

 

[musical marv]

Look at a socialist country and their policies, then look at Obama's policies. Some may be close together but he is far away from a true socialist.

Obama is always advocating for big government control and putting down the elites and advancing more taxes on them.He says he is for the poor and middle class but lately i do not believe him.I say he for big banks and more control over the military also. Look at the drone program.

 

[Reynod]

We would consider him a "Labour" President ... right wing Labour.

I could be wrong though ... I have a habit of being totally wrong ... mainly as an insight tool ... to train the academically deficient.

Totay I'm bucking that trend ... just because your an old codger ... out of respect for my elders marv.

Smile before you click that mouse eh?

 

[johnsonma]

Socialism dispenses monies evenly for various government controlled privileges, right?
It has equal access.Right?
Its done to basically remove the higher profiteering from the wealthy, to be distributed equally amongst everyone.
The same holds for business activities as well, where monopolies exist, but only for the government, and severe penalties for businesses that hold huge shares of a market.
You can point to Hugo Chavez as th latest, as he would literally be walking down the street and point out a business that was to be socialized.
Picking favorites skirts all this very closely, and allows for cronyism as well, if not done in a broader sense, where a majority from all areas of the country are represented.
Now we all know where Obama has either skirted,acted or desired for much of this.

The problem is, as we see the economy as it is, and Obamas attitudes towards spending, his record of spending, where those monies have gone, and how they were dispensed, you do have a strong argument here that yes, he has strong tendencies towards socialism.
Now, one may move the goalposts and assume these are wise moves, accepting that distributing huge sums to a chosen few, with direct ties to Obama, having created the single largest spending bill since social security or welfare, new tech ventures solving energy problems etc, but remember this, this is all being done with a bad economy, what would it be with a great one?
Certainly those numbers would be escalated by huge amounts, as it is, we cant keep up, what if it weren't so?
This is the strongest argument we have concerning Obama and his socialist tendencies, even if you agree with the philosophy, this is the way it would be, and only strengthens the arguement

Somehow you are equating economic policy as being driven by ideology. If you look at all the socialist countries in the EU they are shooting themselves in the foot with Austerity programs. Spending drives growth whether you can stomach it or not. Its comprable to expanding a business. At first you lose money on an investment to later drive growth. Read some of the austerity articles out there and you would be surprised to see how badly it is crippling some countries.

On the other hand you have China, which is doing much the same as us...spending to keep their economy going. In fact i read they plan on doing another stimulus here shortly. Isn't it weird how the Chinese are following our economic policy and thriving? They are farther left than the EU, yet their economic policy is completely different, as are the results.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And again, we have a spending problem and a growth problem.
As we reach record taxes, yet record deficits, spending more is reckless behavior, and shows the theory of spending to drive growth is wrong, being since the motor has no incentive, no skin in the game, and growing disgruntled workforce

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

IF this were a business, I would tend to agree with you, as Ive seen it first hand, going back to the early 80s, and knowing/seeing first hand certain people expanding their business during the last great recession.
I asked the owner of one business why now, when things appear so slow?
He said that its the perfect time to expand, as most things are cheaper, being it was a buyers market, things were slower, so no huge demands for keeping on schedule.
The government doesn't have a clue, as it isn't a business, doesn't really know how or where to expand, and it isn't as if we are like China 1 iota, as any spending in China has greater potential, as it isn't a mature economy as we are here.
Their labor force is cheap, not so here, their capacities are often overwhelmed, not so here etc etc
Please understand, we are not China, didn't come from their approach, don't want to, and our very foundations aren't compatible.
Another example was done here as well.
FDR anyone?
How could we compare our country of today to that which FDR inherited?
At that time, labor was cheap, no roads, bridges, scant infrastructure, and it worked, and is unfortunately one of the designs from which this ideology springs from, and it simply wont work here, as it isn't the same animal, just like China isnt

 

[johnsonma]

It does not matter if we are China or not. This is were your argument shows its merit. We are talking about economic policy and it is separate from political ideology (contrary to what is spewed forth in our Politics). Every country who has had deep spending cuts is still deep within a recession while our economy and that of China's is continuing to grow. Explain to me how going away from this is going to work when all real time information points towards the opposite?

If it wasn't for the initial spending when the recession began we would be much worse off. Why do you think China is doing another stimulus?

 

[MU_Engineer]

Oh boy, this question looks like a Slashdot flamebait post for Europeans to rag on Americans because Obama doesn't fit the European definition of "socialist" and then to tell us that all of our politicians are "right wingers." Because you know, Europe's position on a relative scale just HAS to be the exact middle. You know, because they have the prime meridian and have GMT and all of that as well.

All jokes aside, Obama's apparent #1 directive is to maintain and grow his own personal popularity and the power of the Democrat Party. We can only really guess as to what he really thinks as he and his media buddies are very, very careful to only let the "official" message (as dictated by current political polls and such very subject to later change) get out. We don't know much about him as pretty well everything before his brief stint in Congress has been kept very low-profile and in many cases been declared completely off-limits to public scrutiny such as his transcripts.

My *guess* is to what Obama really thinks is that he wants to be seen as The Learned One Who Brought The U.S. Out Of The Dark Ages. He wants history to revere him essentially a combination of Lincoln and FDR on steroids but with all of the glitz of JFK mixed in as well. He has the arrogance, impractical theoretical mindset, extreme political correctness, and the anti-business, anti-individualist mindset of the academic setting he'd been in previously. He thinks he is smarter than everybody else and is using the government to force the country to be the redistributive, politically-correct, environmentally-friendly, big bureaucratic government determining "fairness" place that academics generally espouse as the ideal. He apparently feels that the government should be in the parental role with regards to severely punishing people and groups who oppose him due to their "bad behavior" so they will "learn their lesson." He is also apparently very willing to accept all of the graft and corruption that accompanies a huge redistributive bureaucracy as part of doing business.

Does that make him a socialist? Depends on who you ask. But he is certainly adopting some parts of socialism for sure with the massive government bureaucracy and the seizure and redistribution of private property and funds.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

What countries, and what was their economic scenario before the cuts?
Whats their valuations?
Have their monies deteriated against other currencies?
It all comes down to value, and theres very little physical value in a government.
Not so in a company.
Notice how so many IT businesses that are mainly net driven aren't really worth a lot?
Theres value in IP, but it only counts if it can be used to generate money.
Not so in a company, where a car is still a car, and the assets are real.

Name value is good, but this too has declined, and the fact that a company that gives those values to countries has devalued us, and this is all done to be set in an open market, unfettered, that this company is being pursued by the Obama admin shows theres smoke somewhere, because as long as people believe in something that's only face value, its worth can be perceived however people perceive it, but once that first card tumbles, the whole house could co0me down, leaving no assets whatsoever.
The so called wisdom of projecting incomes and thus expenditures by our government is poor, again, since theres no skin in the game, with nothing to lose, and with no true full understanding the customers needs, while the workers become disgruntled, and in workers, I mean taxpayers, its all interconnected, not so in a company/business.
As much as the government has attacked and villafied the oil companies, as unpopular as they are in public, like the BP spill, they still make profits.
Farming, breads, so many things that are needed, and all these things existed before governments, so the governments that were started, as ours here had little to do, were actually included in the writs that formed certain governments, that this wasn't their purpose.
Now, not only have we gone beyond the original needs of governments, we argue whether they are a business, has intrinsic value, and controls out economy?
Yet, as the behemoth grows, the argument then is, its not big enough?
Controlling enough?
Costly enough?

Some people unfortunately have more faith in their government to dsolve issues than their neighbors, those who do the work of this nation,k make the cars, farm the land.
How many times has 1 law been copied in various forms, costing even more money?
Repeating government investments like what we had cannot be sustained.
The Japanese did it with Tvs and many electronics years ago, now look to see where they are?
All Im saying is, having faith in the government lends itself to socialism, or socialistic attitudes and approaches, where the faith in your neighbor dwindles.

Certain markets have to settle, or they wont exist, that's called skin in the game.
Not so with government, as all they have to do is make the workers more miserable, and still not gain a clue as to whats truly needed

 

[musical marv]

We would consider him a "Labour" President ... right wing Labour.

I could be wrong though ... I have a habit of being totally wrong ... mainly as an insight tool ... to train the academically deficient.

Totay I'm bucking that trend ... just because your an old codger ... out of respect for my elders marv.

Smile before you click that mouse eh?

So you are admitting Obama is geared more to the right than the left. You will get old someday my man also.he partied for his presidency more to the left and now he took a turn around completely.Big spending and in cahoots with the banks and large corporations.

 

[MU_Engineer]

We would consider him a "Labour" President ... right wing Labour.

I could be wrong though ... I have a habit of being totally wrong ... mainly as an insight tool ... to train the academically deficient.

Totay I'm bucking that trend ... just because your an old codger ... out of respect for my elders marv.

Smile before you click that mouse eh?

So you are admitting Obama is geared more to the right than the left. You will get old someday my man also.he partied for his presidency more to the left and now he took a turn around completely.Big spending and in cahoots with the banks and large corporations.

Reynod is not American. The mention of the Labour party is a big tipoff to that fact. He has a considerably different view of what the center is compared to Americans. Politicians in Europe and the rest of the Commonwealth nations are generally quite a bit to the left of politicians in the U.S. So they see just about all U.S. politicians as being "right-wingers" while we see even their "conservative" politicians as being clearly left of center.

Obama's current policies are fairly similar to that of many so-called conservative politicians in Europe while he is certainly and significantly left of center in the U.S. The leftist politicians in Europe are often advocating something fairly close to communism and you won't find many U.S. politicians outside of a few isolated areas like Berkeley, CA with such left-field views.

 

[chunkymonster]

On the other hand you have China, which is doing much the same as us...spending to keep their economy going. In fact i read they plan on doing another stimulus here shortly. Isn't it weird how the Chinese are following our economic policy and thriving? They are farther left than the EU, yet their economic policy is completely different, as are the results.

Every country who has had deep spending cuts is still deep within a recession while our economy and that of China's is continuing to grow. Explain to me how going away from this is going to work when all real time information points towards the opposite?

If it wasn't for the initial spending when the recession began we would be much worse off. Why do you think China is doing another stimulus?

I'm not completely sold on the parallel between China's stimulus spending and America's stimulus spending. China is, after all, a Communist country in the purest of sense. They can manipulate their currency more easily and demand more from their manufacturing base through their inherent centralized control and command structure. While I agree that the stimulus *may* have saved America from a deeper recession, I think that the past three years and the failure of stimulus to deliver on Obama's promises shows that continued government spending only walks America down the road towards collapse. The fact is is you can not continue to deficit spend.

Also regarding China, the centralized government demands an 8% ROI on all investment projects. This demand is what has caused China to build dozens of ghost cities. As a result, there is an imminent housing bubble that the Chinese government is working its butt off to stop from bursting because it will effectively destroy the Chinese economy. When (not if) the Chinese housing bubble bursts, all that stimulus spending did was to grow the economy in the short term, line the pockets of the ultra-rich, and ultimately put the average citizen further into debt.

So, are China and America continuing to grow as a result of government spending; yes, maybe. But the American people are starting to wake up to the fact that continued government spending is what put many EU countries into the position of having to implement austerity measures to begin with and that more government spending is not the American answer to fixing our economy.

 

[musical marv]

We should redistribute the money all around and implement more programs like they had during FDR time. Such as WPA Program putting more people back to work.More infrastructure also would help.

 

[MU_Engineer]

We should redistribute the money all around and implement more programs like they had during FDR time. Such as WPA Program putting more people back to work.More infrastructure also would help.

Isn't that exactly what the multiple stimuli in the past few years were supposed to do?

 

[chunkymonster]

We should redistribute the money all around and implement more programs like they had during FDR time. Such as WPA Program putting more people back to work.More infrastructure also would help.

America shouldn't re-distribute any wealth! American re-distributes too much of my income to begin with, let alone double down on socialist policy. American needs to implement incentives that enable the "disenfranchised" to do for themselves; as they say, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for life."

 

[johnsonma]

On the other hand you have China, which is doing much the same as us...spending to keep their economy going. In fact i read they plan on doing another stimulus here shortly. Isn't it weird how the Chinese are following our economic policy and thriving? They are farther left than the EU, yet their economic policy is completely different, as are the results.

Every country who has had deep spending cuts is still deep within a recession while our economy and that of China's is continuing to grow. Explain to me how going away from this is going to work when all real time information points towards the opposite?

If it wasn't for the initial spending when the recession began we would be much worse off. Why do you think China is doing another stimulus?

I'm not completely sold on the parallel between China's stimulus spending and America's stimulus spending. China is, after all, a Communist country in the purest of sense. They can manipulate their currency more easily and demand more from their manufacturing base through their inherent centralized control and command structure. While I agree that the stimulus *may* have saved America from a deeper recession, I think that the past three years and the failure of stimulus to deliver on Obama's promises shows that continued government spending only walks America down the road towards collapse. The fact is is you can not continue to deficit spend.

Also regarding China, the centralized government demands an 8% ROI on all investment projects. This demand is what has caused China to build dozens of ghost cities. As a result, there is an imminent housing bubble that the Chinese government is working its butt off to stop from bursting because it will effectively destroy the Chinese economy. When (not if) the Chinese housing bubble bursts, all that stimulus spending did was to grow the economy in the short term, line the pockets of the ultra-rich, and ultimately put the average citizen further into debt.

So, are China and America continuing to grow as a result of government spending; yes, maybe. But the American people are starting to wake up to the fact that continued government spending is what put many EU countries into the position of having to implement austerity measures to begin with and that more government spending is not the American answer to fixing our economy.

The Chinese do have more control over their economy but that shouldn't completely discredit the fact that they essentially pulled the world economy out of the crapper. They did this through spending programs aimed at creating value within their economy. Some are only short term fixes but there are plenty of ways to spend stimulus money for future growth.

As far as the EU, most of them had very respectable GDP/debt ratios before the recession began. The financial collapse dried up their capital and they lacked the centralized banking system needed to regulate a higher flow of capital into the financial sector. Then the countries that were worse off were forced to accept ridiculous spending cuts on top of tax increases (for everyone, not just the top earners). This combination led to their current predicaments. I know you have argued against the centralized banking system before but it is a CRUCIAL tool when dealing with this kind of economic upheaval. Also spending goes a lot farther in the production of our economy then people realize. Now you could argue that we shouldn't be dependent on the spending but we are. I'm not talking about the freeloaders either, i'm talking about the government contracts that keep many businesses in business.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Look into history.
Look at how we "suffered" thru all our previous recessions as opposed to other countries.
Then, apply the times, the GDP then compared to today.
As their spending was too government sided, those recessions hit them harder, longer, and they had to change many things.
Lets go back to where this shouldn't hurt us as much again, and Im saying our past congress and presidents are responsible for this, it wasn't inherited simply because theyre too much the same people, same ideas, same spending ethics.
When a cut is defined as a reduction on future planned spending, over and above inflation itself, starting there, with this simple concept of how disingenuous it is to begin with, well maybe our government cant have all the bells and whistles it wants right now, and better solutions to hard and immediate problems will actually have to be done, across the board by both parties

http://www.businessinsider.com/lessons-from-the-quake-rainy-days-do-happen-2011-3

 

[musical marv]

Spending billions on wars which were not necessary and programs that we wasted millions of dollars on that seemed a waste of time.farm subsidies that are not very advantageous to the farmers,foreign aid which is costing us billions of dollars where are own children are starving almost every night.Bailing out banks. The list can go on and on.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Youre becoming a dovish conservative marv....