Obama and Socialism

[JohnnyLingo]

Those of use who had concerns that Obama has a socialist agenda during the campaign process were endlessly mocked and derided for being irrational, partisan hacks for the Republican party.

So here's what I want to do.

Those who think labeling President Obama as having socialist tendencies is insane, I'd like you to outline what policies he'd have to push for, what changes would have to happen in our country before you'd agree that he's moving us in a socialist direction.

I just think that if someone on the right had predicted Obama would oversee the government takeover of GM back in August, posters like Lebowski and Robin would have shouted them down as being stupid.

So let's just establish what it would take for you to agree that Obama is a socialist, in the hypothetical instance that he is.

Does that seem fair?

[KillerDog]

I think you are asking the wrong question. A better question is whether Obama is MORE socialist than recent presidents of the United States. I have found that many of our recent presidents have contributed substantially to the creation of a socialist federal government and Obama has not done it more than they. I think Obama's efforts in industry parallel nicely to George Bush's in banking. I think Obama's deficit spending is similar to what early Reagan (prior to tax raising Reagan) did. I think GWB added more entitlements than Obama. IOW, I think Obama has a slight socialist direction, just like the last three republican presidents. Interestingly, I could think of nothing done by Clinton which was similar.

[JohnnyLingo]

I think you are asking the wrong question. A better question is whether Obama is MORE socialist than recent presidents of the United States. I have found that many of our recent presidents have contributed substantially to the creation of a socialist federal government and Obama has not done it more than they. I think Obama's efforts in industry parallel nicely to George Bush's in banking. I think Obama's deficit spending is similar to what early Reagan (prior to tax raising Reagan) did. I think GWB added more entitlements than Obama. IOW, I think Obama has a slight socialist direction, just like the last three republican presidents. Interestingly, I could think of nothing done by Clinton which was similar.

I agree that past Republican presidents have made socialist moves.

But I'd really rather focus on the future. What would it take for you to say, "Wow, President Obama is a socialist!"

[KillerDog]

I agree that past Republican presidents have made socialist moves.

But I'd really rather focus on the future. What would it take for you to say, "Wow, President Obama is a socialist!"

I've always thought he had socialist concepts and ideas. I think most would agree with that. In fact, I don't think there are thinking people who doing believe he has socialist tendencies. I think the point of his adherents is that he is not more socialist than we are used to. He is the normal, approved amount of socialist.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Lingo, many of us who voted for Obama were aware that he was left of center, but we expected him to be pragmatic and not drift too far to the left; thus far, we're not disappointed, at least I'm not.

But your mention of the GM takeover by Obama as apparent evidence of his socialist leanings is curious. You're aware, I assume, that his predecessor is the one who made the biggest loan to GM, that the loan put the government at the top of the heap of creditors, and that the loan's default gave the government the right to call the shots. This is the case for any senior creditor, governmental or not. Would Bush have simply forgiven the loan or let subordinated creditors run the show? I'm probably naive, but I believe Obama would really like GM to succeed, for the government to get the taxpayers' money back, and for the government's task force to disband as soon as possible. And that's not very socialistic at all.

I'm more concerned about 538 congresspeople voting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on myriad projects that can't possibly be efficiently managed.

[JohnnyLingo]

I've always thought he had socialist concepts and ideas. I think most would agree with that. In fact, I don't think there are thinking people who doing believe he has socialist tendencies. I think the point of his adherents is that he is not more socialist than we are used to. He is the normal, approved amount of socialist.

Well that's new. I don't think I talked to a single person before the election who said "Obama has socialist concepts and ideas. He is the normal, approved amount of socialist."

Can you define "socialist" for me?

[KillerDog]

Well that's new. I don't think I talked to a single person before the election who said "Obama has socialist concepts and ideas. He is the normal, approved amount of socialist."

Can you define "socialist" for me?

Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer.

It has been the rule for our federal government since the 30s. You want it to have a more nefarious significance than there really is.

[JohnnyLingo]

Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer.

I have to apologize... I have zero background in economics or law.

What does "equal opportunities/means for all individuals" mean?

What does "full product of the laborer" mean?

It has been the rule for our federal government since the 30s. You want it to have a more nefarious significance than there really is.

Hey, don't look at me. It's people from the left who desperately avoid the label. If there was nothing nefarious about it, why doesn't Obama openly embrace it?

[KillerDog]

I have to apologize... I have zero background in economics or law.

What does "equal opportunities/means for all individuals" mean?

What does "full product of the laborer" mean?



Hey, don't look at me. It's people from the left who desperately avoid the label. If there was nothing nefarious about it, why doesn't Obama openly embrace it?

I was trying to be fancy. Socialism is any government interaction with the economy that increases government control in what businesses do particularly as it tends toward wealth redistribution.

The reason Obama is trying to avoid it is because the US Government propaganda machine convinced everyone that socialism was the great evil of the 20th century and they can't take it back. As a result, everyone tries to call their plans something other than socialist because they know people bought what they were selling.

At the core, anyone who buys into class warfare is a socialist. Anyone who is trying to raise people out of poverty through governmental intervention is a socialist. Politicians avoid the lable like the plague because it is misunderstood and misapplied.

[JohnnyLingo]

I was trying to be fancy. Socialism is any government interaction with the economy that increases government control in what businesses do particularly as it tends toward wealth redistribution.

So any tax on a business counts, then.

The reason Obama is trying to avoid it is because the US Government propaganda machine convinced everyone that socialism was the great evil of the 20th century and they can't take it back. As a result, everyone tries to call their plans something other than socialist because they know people bought what they were selling.

I agree.

At the core, anyone who buys into class warfare is a socialist. Anyone who is trying to raise people out of poverty through governmental intervention is a socialist. Politicians avoid the lable like the plague because it is misunderstood and misapplied.

But it is what it is, no? Is the socialism the US fought against in the 20th century any different from the socialism we are applying today, both from the left and right?

[SeattleUte]

I was trying to be fancy. Socialism is any government interaction with the economy that increases government control in what businesses do particularly as it tends toward wealth redistribution.

The reason Obama is trying to avoid it is because the US Government propaganda machine convinced everyone that socialism was the great evil of the 20th century and they can't take it back. As a result, everyone tries to call their plans something other than socialist because they know people bought what they were selling.

At the core, anyone who buys into class warfare is a socialist. Anyone who is trying to raise people out of poverty through governmental intervention is a socialist. Politicians avoid the lable like the plague because it is misunderstood and misapplied.

Maybe if self-defined "socialists" had not murdered over 100 million people in the twentieth century the word woudn't be so freighted. Smarty pants, have you ever consdiered what Nazi and USSR are acronyms for?

[KillerDog]

But it is what it is, no? Is the socialism the US fought against in the 20th century any different from the socialism we are applying today, both from the left and right?

I agree. It is what it is. The socialism the US fought against in the 20th century, imo, was little different than the socialism we were practicing at the time. The Iron Rice Bowl was not substantially different than the US welfare and Social Security systems. If I had to peg down the key difference it would be the way government controlled business. The US focused on regulations and incentives to control business. The Soviets and their komrades focused on direct state ownership. The US system tried to capital the capitalist engine and use it to provide their socialist programs. The Soviets believed direct central control was a better way to go. I would say the difference wasn't in the socialism but in the totaltarianism applied to acheive socialist goals.

The current administration doesn't seem substantially more totaltarian than the last administration.

[byu71]

The only reason I detest socialism is that it is a concept that comes out of the liberal (progressive) type of brain. A Pelosi type brain. A Madonna, Brittany Spears, Lindsey Lohan, Paris Hilton, Keith Obermann, type of brain. There are many, many more like them and you know who they are.

That type of brain may be good for entertaining, but not setting up a system to govern a society.

[JohnnyLingo]

If I had to peg down the key difference it would be the way government controlled business. The US focused on regulations and incentives to control business. The Soviets and their komrades focused on direct state ownership. The US system tried to capital the capitalist engine and use it to provide their socialist programs. The Soviets believed direct central control was a better way to go.

So you say this, and then say this?

The current administration doesn't seem substantially more totaltarian than the last administration.

Where did W oversee government takeovers of major US corporations?

[YOhio]

Where did W oversee government takeovers of major US corporations?

Did you not read this post?