Political Discussions
Is Obama a closet socialist?
Posted by laurencefosgate • 5 days ago • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: hidden agenda, obama, socialism
Does the President have plans to move the country further to the left than he pretends?
User Comments
-
More importantly, is he a closet Bushist? -
Closet? there is nothing hidden about it...-
You and I may have seen it, but the press and average Joe seem completely oblivious. Isn't it sad?
-
Is Average Joe really that oblivious? The Republican party seems to have rebuilt itself rather quickly from a 50-year low point to being easily competitive with the democrats in all major swing states and a few states that are solid blue (like NJ). I doubt it's been from much effort of their own, considering their severe deficit of leadership and political talent except maybe two or three people. My guess is the American people are catching on, and fast. -
As long as the Republicans stay focused on the theme of smaller government, less regulation, stronger world presence, they will win big. Most of the leading conservative pundits say that we should not get mired down in social agenda, as long as the above tenets are met. I agree. A big defeat in congress should thoroughly unhinge the current democrat cabal. I predict that a loss would cause them to become more "Chicago" than they already art. When that happens the bloom will be completely off the rose and nervousness will cause the anointed one to go completely off teleprompter. The missteps that occur after that will make the "57 state" verbal blunder look like brilliant oratory by contrast. It is amazing that the press fell all over themselves when Bush mispronounced a word but not knowing how many states there are seemed to be completely off their radar. You got to love their even handedness.
-
-
He is definitely not cut from the same cloth as Bush. But he might have something hiding in those bushes.
-
1) What flavor of socialism do you think Obama has in mind?
2) What steps has he taken thus far that will ultimately lead to this brand of socialism?
3) How long will it take before the US is considered a real socialist society?
Many people that forecast an impending transformation to socialism cannot even define the word. Those who can use very loose definitions that could easily be used to describe other aspects of our existing society, policies or even politicians who decry socialism. Sure, the Obama administration has injected large amounts of cash into our economy and some corporations, but it's easy to criticize without acknowledging the economy-on-life-support inherited from the previous administration.
As of June '09, the percentage of American corporate and business assets not held by the US government was $39.2 trillion. The percentage recently nationalized (to help save us from another Depression) by the US government was $82.3 billion. That's 0.21%.
At that pace, it's going to take the Obama administration a very, very long time to transform our system into a socialist one. Even harder since many of these corporations are already paying back the government with interest.
Food for thought:
What Socialism Looks Like
correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/what_socialism_looks_li...
Actual Socialist: 'Don't Besmirch Socialism's Good Name!'
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/actual-socialist-dont-besmirch-socialisms-...
Obama's "New Socialism"
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/05/obamas-new-socialism-
I think the point that is trying to be made by some is that if he wasn't a socialist out of principle then out of principle he wouldn't advocate for any such things or support such things. That also being said by my own words (and for the sake of a fiery debate) I think that means Obama isn't a man of principle... -
The argument is that Obama isn't living up to principals that he claims not to have but others accuse him of, therefore, he is not a man of principal??? -
"...wouldn't advocate for any such things or support such things..."
So would that mean John McCain is also a "closet socialist"? o_0
74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:_Rj1LH36gRMJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427...
www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/s_1151_summary.cfm
www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/13/112653/285
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
interesting... very interesting..... -
Yes but the regulations et cetera instituted by Obama on the financial and healthcare industries constitute an unofficial de facto ownership that your chart does not take in to account, and considering how vital one of those is for the overall operation of the economy, it could be said to exert a heavy boardroom presence in the operations of other industries.
-
@jeremy
Would that be Obama's "New Socialism"??
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/05/obamas-new-socialism
It kinda seems like the opposition is picking words that mean one thing to describe another just to instill fear - sorta like the term 'death panels'. They also don't like to acknowledge the reasons the Obama administration has taken some of these extraordinary steps - the economy-on-life-support inherited from the previous administration. I don't believe any of this was part of the plan in early to mid-2008, but by the time Obama took control economists and other government officials were recommending drastic measures. George W. Bush even got the ball rolling. I guess he was a closet socialist.
PS: It also puzzles me why people who have just been royally screwed by capitalism run-a-muck would not want additional regulation to help prevent it from happening again. -
@RR: Nothing new about it. This meaning of "socialism" has been used before. Many European nations have used this form of socialism as well.
-
-
i think that the technical term is "reformist," or "laborist"
and at that he is pretty luke-warm
if you really want to find out what he is, just fill out one of those political quizzes based on his positions on various issues-
No, laborists are a lot less arbitrary and more legalistic and collective bargaining oriented. Reformist can mean nearly anything from Martin Luther and Margaret Thatcher to Theodore Roosevelt and Ayatollah Khomienei
-
-
Obama is not a socialist. Any socialist policies that we have (social security really being the only legitimate one) were put into place well before President Obama took office.
Both Democrats and Republicans believe in capitalism. The only difference between the two is that Democrats believe in implementing regulations via the law where Republicans believe the free market can do that on their own. California showed us that corporations cannot regulate themselves (being that it costs money and that chips away at their profits, thus they wont do it). -
Darn didn't stir up a lot of trouble... Oh well, I made an attempt.
Anyway, I wouldn't really call him a socialist either, laborist possibly? Closest things to would be more like a European esque democratic socialist and even seems to be a bit much though he is kind of leaning that direction.
As far as healthcare stances go I would say that him being unconstitutional would be a better argument. The constitution talks of congress and the "powers granted therein" where does it allow them to take over this industry? How can this be justified when it isn't granted outright? Kind of like the post office in a way. The government was granted the right for establishing a post office but not a monopoly over one. There are a lot of things that could be taken questionably over this.
Frankly, if our country really wanted to move this direction then I don't see why congressman are trying to do it the right way with a constitutional reform? Oh wait, that would be because it would never pass... Seems easy for politicians to turn their heads over specific things.-
He reminds me a bit of Tony Blair, who changed Clause 4 of Labour's platform from socialism to "social-ism"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause_IV#Blair.27s_fight
such a statement doesn't strike me as being particularly civil-libertarian, but it is hardly totalitarian. -
Or may be like Tony Robbins... Barack Obama hungry!
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
