Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Obama

Tags:
  • Politics
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
March 11, 2013 12:31:58 AM

Is Obama a Socialist?

More about : obama

March 11, 2013 12:53:03 AM

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
March 11, 2013 11:23:06 AM

I would call Obama a Distributive Egalitarian before I called him a Socialist.
Related resources
March 11, 2013 12:15:17 PM

Whats the premise of socialism?
And how do socialists achieve this goal?
March 11, 2013 12:16:34 PM

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.
March 11, 2013 1:54:40 PM

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
March 11, 2013 1:54:41 PM

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
March 11, 2013 8:00:59 PM

johnsonma said:
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.

March 12, 2013 3:07:26 AM

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?

:) 
March 12, 2013 7:20:34 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
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.

March 12, 2013 11:34:07 AM

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
March 12, 2013 11:45:01 AM

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
March 12, 2013 1:51:56 PM

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?
March 12, 2013 2:19:17 PM

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.
March 12, 2013 2:32:48 PM

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
March 12, 2013 7:51:06 PM

Reynod said:
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.
March 13, 2013 5:05:57 AM

musical marv said:
Reynod said:
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.
March 13, 2013 7:14:27 AM

johnsonma said:
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.
johnsonma said:
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.
March 13, 2013 7:13:57 PM

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.
March 13, 2013 7:53:09 PM

musical marv said:
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?
March 14, 2013 5:42:51 AM

musical marv said:
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."

March 14, 2013 6:47:16 AM

chunkymonster said:
johnsonma said:
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.
johnsonma said:
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.
March 14, 2013 5:12:27 PM

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-r...
March 14, 2013 7:48:45 PM

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.
March 14, 2013 10:01:42 PM

Youre becoming a dovish conservative marv....
March 15, 2013 1:37:32 AM

Yes mu I am not an American though I work for the third most profitable company on the planet ... my boss is American his boss is Australian and his bossess up the chain are all Yanks.

I am in a cubicle just like you !! My cubicle has an adjustable desk so I can stand though ... which is awesome.

I have a lot of respect for my boss as he is very helpful, polite and supportive ... frankly you could not get a better team leader.

Yes marv the two party system here is similar to the US in many respects ... but you can't simply compare the dems with labor and the reps with Liberals here ... but in many respects they are similar.

I'd say Obama is a fairly centrist Dem due to fiscal policy restraints.

He would spend more if he had it ... but he doesn't.

I would say future govt's in the US will all have to have tigher policy with regard to budgets simply as the money is not there.

I am quite interested on how the Fed Res is buying and selling and building their balance sheet as they seem to be doing a very good job to counter the debt.

Anyone want to comment on that aspect as I don't know much about that area as such?



March 15, 2013 6:41:57 AM

Reynod said:

I am quite interested on how the Fed Res is buying and selling and building their balance sheet as they seem to be doing a very good job to counter the debt.

Anyone want to comment on that aspect as I don't know much about that area as such?


The Federal Reserve is practicing an accounting trick for the government that would get any private company's officers thrown in jail for a very long time. They are mainly involved with buying the federal government's debt (as treasury bills and bonds) with money they create out of thin air. So in essence they create an "asset" from absolutely nothing. The reason this hasn't come to bite anybody in the butt yet is that this previous chicanery had been on a much smaller scale and that currently the rest of the world's economies are so bad as to make this fraud less unpalatable than what others are doing. However this is completely unsustainable in even the medium term due to the amount of worthless assets being created by the Fed. We'll see this blow up in the Fed's and the government's face when the rest of the world comes out of the toilet and stops buying the balance of our debt that the Fed doesn't. Interest rates will rise as a result since we are unwilling to stop overspending and will have to continue to try to sell debt OR the Fed will have to buy all of the debt and we'll see a lot of inflation which will (properly) devalue the U.S. dollar. Our economy will absolutely go in the crapper as a result in either case. You can't get something for nothing for very long.

March 15, 2013 7:45:53 AM

Not only that, but they more or less "control" inflation, as its been artificially kept low even longer than they've been making "new" money, which will certainly let more water out once the dam does go, which it will have to.
In many ways this is the same thing China is doing as it controls their monies "value", and again is why th9ings are in such a state of flux around the world, as both the largest economies are doing this.
Its also a simple way to keep energy costs down as you try to maintain or grow hint hint
March 15, 2013 7:51:00 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Youre becoming a dovish conservative marv....
You are right my views and opinions are changing.

March 15, 2013 9:34:01 PM

Reynod said:

I am quite interested on how the Fed Res is buying and selling and building their balance sheet as they seem to be doing a very good job to counter the debt.
Anyone want to comment on that aspect as I don't know much about that area as such?


What do you mean by that?
March 15, 2013 10:56:29 PM

What do you mean what do I mean by that?
March 19, 2013 8:05:48 AM

Regarding the OP's question whether Obama is a socialist or not, I went back and re-watched Dinesh D'Souza's movie; 2016: Obama's America.

Regardless of where you sit regarding D'Souza's documentary, the movie provides great insight into the people, places, philosophy, and ideology that went into forming the man that became President Barrack Obama.

Having grown up under the influence of his anti-colonialist biological father's ideology and the notion that Western countries (America especially) were to blame for exploiting the natural resources of the rest of the world for their own gain really explains Obama's dislike for oil companies, significant increase in America's refined petroleum exports since 2009, and unwillingness to take advantage of America's own natural resources.

Obama's mother was a well know member and supporter of the Communist Party and as his only stable parental figure, she greatly influenced the man that Obama becomes. His mother's hatred of capitalism was relayed in the movie through the telling of her marriage to Lolo Sotero. When Anne Dunham first met Sotero, he was fighting to overthrow Dutch colonialism and bring in the Communist party headed by Sukarno. In 1968, when General Suharto deposed Sukarno, the General opened Indonesia to foreign investment which brought about several decades of economic growth. What's important to understand is that Anne Dunham fell in love with Sotero when he was fighting to bring Communism into Indonesia, but when Suharto opened Indonesia to foreign investment, Sotero realized the inherent opportunities of capitalism and changed his views on communism. Anne Dunham then left Sotero, according to the movie, as a a result of Sotero embracing capitalism to create a new Indonesia and his rejection of Communist ideals. Anne Dunham's willingness to divorce a man over ideological differences shows her vehement belief in socialism and sets a tremendous example for a young and impressionable Barry Sotero.

His mother's influence combined with having been raised during his teenage years by his card-carrying Socialist Party Grandfather as well as having the well known Communist Frank Marshal Davis as his mentor explains Obama's disdain for America's wealth as well as his socialist-style wealth redistribution policies. These beliefs are further solidified as Obama enter college and associated with Black Liberation Theology,

Obama may be an American but he was not raised in a typical inner-city or suburban environment where their is a homogeny of culture and society. He did not partake in the typical American public education where there still is some influence about America's greatness, America's significant contributions to the world, the greatness of the Constitution, the belief in the rule of law, and the ideology that each man is free to pursue their own end so long as it does not inhibit another man's rights to do the same.

After re-watching the movie, I would say that Obama is a man with a very skewed perception of America but I wouldn't call Obama a socialist. His narcissistic tendencies seemingly are born out of a desire to prove himself to his absent father and reconcile the various influences in his early life that caused him to feel marginalized. I would say that he is a misguided and misdirected man who honestly believes that America needs fundamental change in order to live up to the ideal of America that was instilled by his anti-colonialist father as well as his communist mother, grandfather, and mentors. Obama is the perfect pawn of the progressive movement that has been subverting the American republic for the past 100 years. Obama is also, in my opinion, the last great hope for the progressives, as the aging Hippies and Boomers generation come to an end, to fundamentally transform America into the progressive ideal.

March 19, 2013 8:16:50 PM

chunkymonster said:
Regarding the OP's question whether Obama is a socialist or not, I went back and re-watched Dinesh D'Souza's movie; 2016: Obama's America.

Regardless of where you sit regarding D'Souza's documentary, the movie provides great insight into the people, places, philosophy, and ideology that went into forming the man that became President Barrack Obama.

Having grown up under the influence of his anti-colonialist biological father's ideology and the notion that Western countries (America especially) were to blame for exploiting the natural resources of the rest of the world for their own gain really explains Obama's dislike for oil companies, significant increase in America's refined petroleum exports since 2009, and unwillingness to take advantage of America's own natural resources.

Obama's mother was a well know member and supporter of the Communist Party and as his only stable parental figure, she greatly influenced the man that Obama becomes. His mother's hatred of capitalism was relayed in the movie through the telling of her marriage to Lolo Sotero. When Anne Dunham first met Sotero, he was fighting to overthrow Dutch colonialism and bring in the Communist party headed by Sukarno. In 1968, when General Suharto deposed Sukarno, the General opened Indonesia to foreign investment which brought about several decades of economic growth. What's important to understand is that Anne Dunham fell in love with Sotero when he was fighting to bring Communism into Indonesia, but when Suharto opened Indonesia to foreign investment, Sotero realized the inherent opportunities of capitalism and changed his views on communism. Anne Dunham then left Sotero, according to the movie, as a a result of Sotero embracing capitalism to create a new Indonesia and his rejection of Communist ideals. Anne Dunham's willingness to divorce a man over ideological differences shows her vehement belief in socialism and sets a tremendous example for a young and impressionable Barry Sotero.

His mother's influence combined with having been raised during his teenage years by his card-carrying Socialist Party Grandfather as well as having the well known Communist Frank Marshal Davis as his mentor explains Obama's disdain for America's wealth as well as his socialist-style wealth redistribution policies. These beliefs are further solidified as Obama enter college and associated with Black Liberation Theology,

Obama may be an American but he was not raised in a typical inner-city or suburban environment where their is a homogeny of culture and society. He did not partake in the typical American public education where there still is some influence about America's greatness, America's significant contributions to the world, the greatness of the Constitution, the belief in the rule of law, and the ideology that each man is free to pursue their own end so long as it does not inhibit another man's rights to do the same.

After re-watching the movie, I would say that Obama is a man with a very skewed perception of America but I wouldn't call Obama a socialist. His narcissistic tendencies seemingly are born out of a desire to prove himself to his absent father and reconcile the various influences in his early life that caused him to feel marginalized. I would say that he is a misguided and misdirected man who honestly believes that America needs fundamental change in order to live up to the ideal of America that was instilled by his anti-colonialist father as well as his communist mother, grandfather, and mentors. Obama is the perfect pawn of the progressive movement that has been subverting the American republic for the past 100 years. Obama is also, in my opinion, the last great hope for the progressives, as the aging Hippies and Boomers generation come to an end, to fundamentally transform America into the progressive ideal.

After all the insight you posted about Obama. What would you label him as?

March 20, 2013 6:51:18 AM

musical marv said:
After all the insight you posted about Obama. What would you label him as?


I do not think there is a singular word to describe what Obama is...I would use any number of words like; technocrat, facist, narcissist, or maybe even distributive egalitarian...but I thought I summed up my thoughts in the last last paragraph of my last post...
Quote:
After re-watching the movie, I would say that Obama is a man with a very skewed perception of America but I wouldn't call Obama a socialist. His narcissistic tendencies seemingly are born out of a desire to prove himself to his absent father and reconcile the various influences in his early life that caused him to feel marginalized. I would say that he is a misguided and misdirected man who honestly believes that America needs fundamental change in order to live up to the ideal of America that was instilled by his anti-colonialist father as well as his communist mother, grandfather, and mentors. Obama is the perfect pawn of the progressive movement that has been subverting the American republic for the past 100 years. Obama is also, in my opinion, the last great hope for the progressives, as the aging Hippies and Boomers generation come to an end, to fundamentally transform America into the progressive ideal.

March 24, 2013 8:12:43 PM

Meanwhile the people are starving in China.The Communist party could not care one iota about them.Never trust China or Russia period. At least our country is not that bad compared to China so far.
March 25, 2013 7:36:05 AM

musical marv said:
Meanwhile the people are starving in China.The Communist party could not care one iota about them.Never trust China or Russia period. At least our country is not that bad compared to China so far.


The Chinese people who are starving live the cities that depend the government, but they do not provide what the government wants, therefore they starve.
People who do not live in the city fair better with food as they grow their own and generally rely very little on the government and provide food.

I'm not saying their farming communities and/remote towns fair better. The lifestyle of a city is one thing.. but what you see in China is what we on the 'right' of the fence are trying to avoid: People so dependent on the government that at some point the gov't must stop providing for them for the greater good.

Studies have been done on this condition: Workers, Helpers, and Moochers. Eventually, the moochers will cause enough trouble that the helpers can't keep up and everything falls apart. Studies were done on flocks of birds (shorter lifespan) to watch how groups were breeded our and eventually broke apart.
March 26, 2013 7:08:48 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Not to derail to far but I have to comment on China's economic "boom" that johnson brought up. Their boom due to stimulus spending as you say, is strongly tied to their construction industry, which is a giant fake bubble. The Chinese are building entire cities that are no one lives in.. That is the sort of "stimulus spending" the Chinese are doing. It's one huge, fake bubble. It will eventually burst; just like our housing bubble burst because it was a huge, fake bubble.


Their construction industry is a hobby for the elite's. Their economy is predominately based on their manufacturing sector.

March 26, 2013 7:11:52 AM

musical marv said:

The Chinese people who are starving live the cities that depend the government, but they do not provide what the government wants, therefore they starve.
People who do not live in the city fair better with food as they grow their own and generally rely very little on the government and provide food.

I'm not saying their farming communities and/remote towns fair better. The lifestyle of a city is one thing.. but what you see in China is what we on the 'right' of the fence are trying to avoid: People so dependent on the government that at some point the gov't must stop providing for them for the greater good.

Studies have been done on this condition: Workers, Helpers, and Moochers. Eventually, the moochers will cause enough trouble that the helpers can't keep up and everything falls apart. Studies were done on flocks of birds (shorter lifespan) to watch how groups were breeded our and eventually broke apart.



What do you consider a moocher? Do the 25% of the american people who are obese and are putting a strain on our healthcare system qualify? What about the elderly?
March 26, 2013 8:38:48 AM

musical marv said:
Is Obama a Socialist?


Is there a politician around in this day and age who doesn't qualify as a socialist?

The last hold-out of what was once known as "liberalism," (what we call libertarian today) went out with Ron Paul, and in point of fact even he took part in the distribution of other people's wealth when he believed it was justified. He just voted against such things much more often than not.

Anyway, personally, I find the socialist accusation to be the lady who doth protest much. Politics is always socialist. Politics is always fascist. Republicans love to spend other people's money just as much as Democrats (see: Bush years) and Democrats love to murder foreign and domestic persons as much as any Republican Hawk (see: Obama).

There is no fundamental difference between one ruling class member and the other. If you want to see the end of this kind of mess, you reject the political system, not the current figurehead. (See: Rothbard, Hopper, Spooner) There is no common good, just the good of the politicians (and their lobbyist friends) who claim to (but never actually do) represent your best interests.
March 26, 2013 10:17:24 AM

I liked the question put to Adam Corolla by Bill O'Reilly
Corrollas mom lived off of welfare, when he was 9 or 10, he told his mom, "why not just go and get a job?"
She told him she couldnt do that, as she would then lose her welfare, at which time, he looked straight into the camera and said "what would happen if we just stopped welfare? I mean really stopped it?""
He then made references to Mexico, where people there arent starving in the streets, and they have no welfare.
He came from there, saw what it did to his mother, as he compared it to astronauts and spcae, as they atropy from lack of use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...

So, either youve been there or not, and if you were there, you arent any longer, and if you arent any longer, then recognize that, and have others move along as well.
Anything to the contrary is socialism with negative effects
March 27, 2013 12:13:40 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I liked the question put to Adam Corolla by Bill O'Reilly
Corrollas mom lived off of welfare, when he was 9 or 10, he told his mom, "why not just go and get a job?"
She told him she couldnt do that, as she would then lose her welfare, at which time, he looked straight into the camera and said "what would happen if we just stopped welfare? I mean really stopped it?""
He then made references to Mexico, where people there arent starving in the streets, and they have no welfare.
He came from there, saw what it did to his mother, as he compared it to astronauts and spcae, as they atropy from lack of use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...

So, either youve been there or not, and if you were there, you arent any longer, and if you arent any longer, then recognize that, and have others move along as well.
Anything to the contrary is socialism with negative effects
I was on welfare years and years ago and believe me they treat you like real shit when you go down to apply for it.It is no paradise to be on welfare.

March 27, 2013 12:34:03 AM

Back then, you were supposed to work, and people assumed you should be working.
Not so nowadays, just check my link, the "mom" watches her kids as they play in a play zone for kids, hands the people at the "store" her list of groceries, they bag it, and run it out to nher car, I suspect its a lil different today than in your day marv?

This is just proof of what some are refering to as the entitlement society weve become, thru government intervention, and as Carrolla said, too many people on welfare rots us from within, as not everyone needs it, and instead of being shamed, as in your case marv, they extoll all the benefits of it, like the commercial weve all paid for, besides the services.
I guess if Obama thinks this set up it OK, then yes, he is a socialist, barring what everyone needs to do to contribute, since that never seems to come up, and is why I always mention how far away he is from JFK and what JFK wanted of America and Americans, as opposed to what we have today
March 27, 2013 6:54:21 AM

You have been watching too much tv JDJ. We have 4.4 million people on welfare, some of them work part time jobs. The cases you are talking about are the exceptions, not the rules.
March 27, 2013 7:01:26 AM

musical marv said:
I was on welfare years and years ago and believe me they treat you like real shit when you go down to apply for it.It is no paradise to be on welfare.

You seem to me Marv as the type of guy who hated being on welfare and had the desire and esteem to pick yourself up and become self sufficient.

I grew up on welfare, living in welfare housing, and was one of the few kids who got free lunch at school. Back in the day, you were looked at differently, taken pity on, mocked, made fun of, and generally treated like crap for being the "poor kid". I can appreciate what you're saying.

Butthe primary difference here Marv, as Jaydeejohn is pointing out, is that folks like you and I learned from that experience and used it to better ourselves. Generational welfare existed back in the day, but it was not as widely accepted. Now, it is the new normal to have 4th and 5th generation welfare families. The kids are raised to believe that they deserve that benefit, that they are not expected to better themselves, and they are entitled to a lifestyle (not a subsistence as welfare was intended) at the cost and expense of everyone else.

Generational dependence on the government for a lifestyle is a goal of progressivism. Anything to grow the State and make the State indistinguishable from the People. All things the People need begin and end with government. I refer you to the Obama slideshow, "The Life of Julia" as the epitome of the progressive end game.

March 27, 2013 7:17:02 AM

johnsonma said:
You have been watching too much tv JDJ. We have 4.4 million people on welfare, some of them work part time jobs. The cases you are talking about are the exceptions, not the rules.


I guess saying only 4.4 million people are on welfare depends on what statistic and measure you use. The 4.4 million number does not include the people on food stamps (46.7 million) and people receiving unemployment assistance (5.6 million); all of which are forms of welfare. If you were to account for these forms of welfare, the total number of people rises greatly to 56.7 million!

But then again, if you use the measure of the number of families where at least one person living in the household are receiving some form of government assistance, then the number jumps to 108 million!

None of the above statistics include folks receiving SSI or Medicare benefits who are under the legal retirement age to receive such benefits (under the age of 64) in which we can add another 6.1 million people.

So, taking into account all forms of government assistance available, the number of people on welfare ranges anywhere from 62.8 to 114.0 million!

March 27, 2013 11:14:14 AM

johnsonma said:
You have been watching too much tv JDJ. We have 4.4 million people on welfare, some of them work part time jobs. The cases you are talking about are the exceptions, not the rules.


Nationally in 2011, Rector said, the average number of recipients was approximately 100 million -- nearly a third of the U.S. population, he noted. According to the bureau’s employment data, 140 million people had a job that year.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/11/...

These are people receiving aid without contribution, excluding old or infirm.
If you choose to narrow it down to TANF, then yes, those numbers are correct, but thats only those who rely strictly upon the government.
The numbers I gave are those who receive some form or other of support, who could most likely either do without, or save and do what theyre getting from welfare/us.
Thats the difference here, and trying to be disingenuous isnt whats called for.
Welfare comes in many forms, whether youre working or not, its at best a artificial minimum wage, at worst pure socialism that atrophies its recipients.
Now, guess as to whether the 100 million getting some form costs us more than the 4.4?
March 27, 2013 12:27:29 PM

Both of you have comments that are all over the place. I thought we were talking about people living solely off the government? Isn't this what you are proposing by continually saying we are an entitlement society? Some people need help with food, so they have food stamps. This goes up during a recession, it will go down. I bet they feel pretty embarrassed when they do use food stamps.

This does not mean they are living off the government, they still have to pay their bills. We are talking about getting a welfare check in the mail as your only source of income correct?

Also, a huge percentage of the people you guys are throwing into your version of "welfare" are elderly and sick people that cannot fend for themselves.

Food stamps and unemployment aren't welfare. Neither is medicare or medicaid.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Looks like it was 4.1, must of been using old numbers.
March 27, 2013 7:48:31 PM

johnsonma said:
Both of you have comments that are all over the place. I thought we were talking about people living solely off the government? Isn't this what you are proposing by continually saying we are an entitlement society? Some people need help with food, so they have food stamps. This goes up during a recession, it will go down. I bet they feel pretty embarrassed when they do use food stamps.

This does not mean they are living off the government, they still have to pay their bills. We are talking about getting a welfare check in the mail as your only source of income correct?

Also, a huge percentage of the people you guys are throwing into your version of "welfare" are elderly and sick people that cannot fend for themselves.

Food stamps and unemployment aren't welfare. Neither is medicare or medicaid.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Looks like it was 4.1, must of been using old numbers.
Would you say they are entitlements that people deserve?

March 28, 2013 6:37:19 AM

I think that food stamps are a great idea to help people out when they are having a rough time in their life. Also medicare and medicaid are essential for the poor and elderly. The exponential rise of the cost of healthcare is the root cause of the problem with these programs. It may become inevitable that we have to cut some of these two programs because of healthcare costs but saying that it is welfare and should be cut completely is just ignorant of your fellow Americans struggles.

Unemployment and welfare should have incredibly stringent standards to make mooching almost impossible. If there truly are 3rd and 4th generation families on welfare then there needs to be consequences for not contributing to our society. I tried to research this idea a little more but the resources are scarce.

Also, a lot of people on welfare are people with disabilities. Nothing you can do there really.

Unemployment has some serious requirements to qualify for, but I think the maximum you should be able to be on unemployment in most cases is 2 years.
March 28, 2013 7:21:40 AM

johnsonma said:
Both of you have comments that are all over the place. I thought we were talking about people living solely off the government? Isn't this what you are proposing by continually saying we are an entitlement society? Some people need help with food, so they have food stamps. This goes up during a recession, it will go down. I bet they feel pretty embarrassed when they do use food stamps.

This does not mean they are living off the government, they still have to pay their bills. We are talking about getting a welfare check in the mail as your only source of income correct?

Also, a huge percentage of the people you guys are throwing into your version of "welfare" are elderly and sick people that cannot fend for themselves.

Food stamps and unemployment aren't welfare. Neither is medicare or medicaid.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Looks like it was 4.1, must of been using old numbers.


My comments were *intentionally* all over the place to underscore how specious the "entitlement society" debates can be. I absolutely believe the entitlement mentality wholly exists as I have witnessed and interacted with many minorities who openly state they are owed free food, education, cars, clothes, or whatever simply because they are a minority. And, you can bet your last dollar they absolutely and unequivocally BELIEVE that someone from the government should be giving it to them.

I disagree on what is or is not considered welfare given that Webster defines welfare as..."financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government". The thought that food stamps, unemployment, medicare, and SSI are not actually being welfare contradicts that definition. Welfare as defined does not recognize degrees of financial or other assistance.

However, I totally agree with you on the generational recipients, and they do exist, there are plenty living two towns away from me. Resources and statistics regarding these generational recipients are scarce because these families know how to game the system as well as apologetic case workers showing them the loopholes so they can continue to receive benefits. For example; case workers urging women to have more children, changing the name of the beneficiary from the parent to the child, changing addresses, getting a relative to have power of attorney over a recipients children, legally changing your name, claiming hardship or injury, and so on...

Please don't get me wrong, as rich as America is, I consider welfare a societal benefit. It is necessary to help those who are physically unable to help themselves or are honestly left with no other means. But, as you eluded to, there should be limits on the amount and time benefits can be received. In the end, I object to a political ideology that uses welfare as a means to grow the size and scope of government, maintains welfare recipients as a voting bloc, and demonizes anyone who does not agree with their views on welfare.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!