OBAMA is a socialist!!!!
-
thrash;244245 wrote:
People (especially Jim, who is smart enough to know better) shouldn't confuse socialism and communism. Most european nations are "socialist" in the sense that the needs of society (defined by the government) are prioritized over the needs and rights of individuals.Socialism doesn't imply or require collective ownership of capital & labor, doesn't imply or require the government to set wages, etc.
Socialist nations tend to feature very high taxes, very heavy regulation, and heavy redistributionist policies.
There is no credible argument that Obama doesn't plan to take us further towards the socio-economic style of european socialism. It is NOT UP FOR DEBATE that he thinks it is appropriate to take more money from the wealthy to pay for services, programs, and outright handouts for the less wealthy. He wants this in the name of "social justice" and for "the good of society". He feels that the good of society is more important than the rights of a specific individual.
Again, this is not up for debate. And this is essentially the definition of socialism -- prioritizing society over the individual.
Furthermore, Obama is NOT someone who is satisfied with the US constitution. You can find his 2001 speech on civil rights, where he laments that the Constituion is a negative liberties document. He complains that the civil rights movement didn't do enough to transform the role of government in the US into a "equality of outcome" and "social justice" instrument.
Everyone between FDR and Reagan, and everyone after Reagan, has allowed for creeping progress of the progressive/socialist agenda in the US. That doesn't mean that there aren't different Degrees of progress (well, regression IMO).
For anyone that is on the fence about this or doesn't understand why smart people are so afraid the changes Obama hopes to bring, I can chat with you in person or PM you or whatever. I can also loan you my personal copies of "Free to Choose, "The Road to Serfdom", or "Capitalism and Freedom" -- books which will help you understand why what Obama wants, and why his general worldview -- is so dangerous to our prosperity and ultimately our freedom.
It is my opinion that Obama is the most authoritarian-socialist leaning candidate for president we have ever had. The nastiest part about it is that he seems to be happy to ignore or work outside the law and even his own promises to acheive his goals. That concerns me a lot.
Sorry, your wrong. I am smart enough to not confuse socialism and communism.
Socialism is defined as: Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
Communism is defined as: Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian,** classless society **based on common ownership of the means of production and property in general.
Obama is neither a socialist, nor a communist. I'm not sure how your defining socialism, but it is widely accepted (and the actual basis of) socialism as defined above.
-
must
find
popcorn
emoticon
-
Jim,
Read the whole summary block from the Wikipedia article you took the "definition" from. Which one of these points do you think Obama isn't for? Explain why.
-
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society
-
All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly
-
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.
Furthermore, state ownership is NOT a feature of many scandanavian and european countries, yet everyone agrees that they are social democracies and are for all intents and purposes "socialist". Why is there a lengthy discussion of the various european states in the very article you cite? If you want to base your entire argument on the accuracy of 1 of 2 or 3 clauses of the first definition in the Wikipedia article, that's fine.
I've invented a new word called "euro-welfare-statist" that means "most of what the article you quoted talks about but doesn't have an iron-clad reliance on state-ownership, and generally describes most western european economies, and the direction that Obama wants to take us".
Feel better?
-
-
Jim's "definition" of socialism is just one part, here is an interesting snip on the definition....
"As we've learned, socialism is difficult to define because it has so many incarnations. One of the things socialists agree on is that capitalism causes oppression of the lower class. Socialists believe that due to the competitive nature of capitalism, the wealthy minority maintains control of industry, effectively driving down wages and opportunity for the working class. The main goal of socialism is to dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state. This results in a harmonious society, free of oppression and financial instability"
Now, what Obama wants isn't the actual control of industry by the state, but his plans are basically identical to what the socialists want to do to capitalism.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
thrash;244260 wrote:
Jim,Read the whole summary block from the Wikipedia article you took the "definition" from. Which one of these points do you think Obama isn't for? Explain why.
Furthermore, state ownership is NOT a feature of many scandanavian and european countries, yet everyone agrees that they are social democracies and are for all intents and purposes "socialist". Why is there a lengthy discussion of the various european states in the very article you cite? If you want to base your entire argument on the accuracy of 1 of 2 or 3 clauses of the first definition in the Wikipedia article, that's fine.
I've invented a new word called "euro-welfare-statist" that means "most of what the article you quoted talks about but doesn't have an iron-clad reliance on state-ownership, and generally describes most western european economies, and the direction that Obama wants to take us".
Feel better?
I'm not basing my argument over a few sentences of information Thrash, look, I've read plenty about socialism.
You ramble on about your libertarian view points, books to read so an so forth, but look, anyway that you look at it, Obama is not a socialist.
Does Obama want nationalized health care.... no.
Are Obama's tax plans promoting ACTUAL income reditribution... no.
Are Obama's tax plans promoting levels of taxation anywhere near to the levels of taxes in a "socialist" state? no
Has deregulation of the banking industry helped us? NoSo maybe you can clear things up for me, but how again is Obama a socialist?
-
DaveH;244263 wrote:
Jim's "definition" of socialism is just one part, here is an interesting snip on the definition...."As we've learned, socialism is difficult to define because it has so many incarnations. One of the things socialists agree on is that capitalism causes oppression of the lower class. Socialists believe that due to the competitive nature of capitalism, the wealthy minority maintains control of industry, effectively driving down wages and opportunity for the working class. The main goal of socialism is to dispel class distinctions by turning over control of industry to the state. This results in a harmonious society, free of oppression and financial instability"
Now, what Obama wants isn't the actual control of industry by the state, but his plans are basically identical to what the socialists want to do to capitalism.
Socialist want to force the means of production in to the hands of the working class, none of which Obama has supported or proposed, here is a quote directly from the Socialist party:
"Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth."
-
Jim;244269 wrote:
Does Obama want nationalized health care.... no.Yes. He hates that not everyone gets health care. He's going to steal from me to pay for others to get care. Name one economy anywhere in the world where government forces everyone to have government-paid-for healthcare and then the government itself doesn't directly nationalize or regulate to the point of defacto-nationalization of healthcare. Did you know that private healthcare in Canada is (effectively) illegal ? That doesn't bother you?
Are Obama's tax plans promoting ACTUAL income reditribution... no.
Yes. Furthermore, his tax plans aren't at issue -- his words are. His own words are "we need to spread the wealth around, you need to share with the people behind you". His tax policy is one of the ways he'll do that, but unfortuneately, not the only way.
Are Obama's tax plans promoting levels of taxation anywhere near to the levels of taxes in the so called "socialist" euro states? No
For most of the people who will get handouts? Of course not. They won't pay antyhing.
You probably don't remember this, but prior to Reagan the top income tax bracket was over 50%. Seriously. We're only 30 years away from being as bad as the euro-socialist nations. And our corporate income tax rate is one of the highest in the world, and Obama wants to get more money via corporate income tax. Yet somehow he's going to keep jobs here in the US by increasing the business tax burden?
Has deregulation of the banking industry helped us? No
It's not clear to me that you've tendered a qualified opinion or analysis on this issue. Suggesting that bank deregulation is at fault or even relevant in the current situation when the primary entities involved were all creations of the federal government [which have worked to avoid being regulated] seems dishonest.
-
Jim;244270 wrote:
Socialist want to force the means of production in to the hands of the working class, none of which Obama has supported or proposed, here is a quote directly from the Socialist party:.This is exactly what I said in the quote above. This is the one part of socialism that Obama doesn't claim to be for.
But the large majority of the rest of the socialist platform he "is" for.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
thrash;244271 wrote:
Yes. He hates that not everyone gets health care. He's going to steal from me to pay for others to get care.im sorry but if some kid's life is saved by you NOT super sizing tomorrow then tough shit. stop posting on the interwebs so you can get back to torturing and killing kittens.
if you make 250k+ and the tax hike means you are forced to stop being so wasteful (because thats all it is when you make that sort of money) then i say GOOD if a single mom can raise two kids on 23k a year then you and your quarter mil can suffer and mow your own lawn from now on.
-
So then wtf is the point of working, going to school for a long time and trying to get a high paying job such as a surgeon, lawyer, docter ect, when one can just skip college all together and the government will punish those that worked to get where they are and give me their money?
-
kylush;244316 wrote:
So then wtf is the point of working, going to school for a long time and trying to get a high paying job such as a surgeon, lawyer, docter ect, when one can just skip college all together and the government will punish those that worked to get where they are and give me their money?If you honestly think your quality of life is worse if you make more than $250,000/year than it is if you are on welfare making $12k/year (at best) I suggest going back to school and taking economics classes.
-
tjamz;244325 wrote:
If you honestly think your quality of life is worse if you make more than $250,000/year than it is if you are on welfare making $12k/year (at best) I suggest going back to school and taking economics classes.No the point is if you are successful because of hard work and school, you shouldnt be penalized more than others for that.
-
tjamz;244325 wrote:
If you honestly think your quality of life is worse if you make more than $250,000/year than it is if you are on welfare making $12k/year (at best) I suggest going back to school and taking economics classes.If you honestly took that as the literal meaning of my comment you definitely missinterperated it. It was an extreme example asking why someone who goes to school for 8-10 years and spends a shitton on and education, or works their way up a ladder through a company, and works their ass off to get a good paying job should be penelized for doing so. And why someone would be motivated to do so just so the government can fuck them over more so then if they hadn't.
-
The whole tax issue/debate could be simply fixed with a flat tax rate. Why create brackets? Why take more $ from people who are more successful? There is no reason to punish them for being successful, just keep it a simple flat tax rate.. Which ever % that would be would be whatever is equivalant to what the whole nation pays already. Than everyone can stop their bitching, because if they make an extra $10-200k or whatever a year, they are taxed the same.
-
24valvenotak;244314 wrote:
im sorry but if some kid's life is saved by you NOT super sizing tomorrow then tough shit. stop posting on the interwebs so you can get back to torturing and killing kittens.if you make 250k+ and the tax hike means you are forced to stop being so wasteful (because thats all it is when you make that sort of money) then i say GOOD if a single mom can raise two kids on 23k a year then you and your quarter mil can suffer and mow your own lawn from now on.
I'd like to add a +1 to this mmmkay? Oh and lolz...
-
24valvenotak;244314 wrote:
im sorry but if some kid's life is saved by you NOT super sizing tomorrow then tough shit. stop posting on the interwebs so you can get back to torturing and killing kittens.if you make 250k+ and the tax hike means you are forced to stop being so wasteful (because thats all it is when you make that sort of money) then i say GOOD if a single mom can raise two kids on 23k a year then you and your quarter mil can suffer and mow your own lawn from now on.
its a bit different for a business.... 250k is not alot of money... for some thats just scraping by...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login