Obama the socialist.

I don't get why the big hub ub over calling him a socialist.

His own party has admitted his bill on healthcare as being a step closer to (Socialized) medicine.

He has been on record of supporting socialized medicine and single payor. And since he at one time opposed mandated insurance, you can expect him to never come clean on his true intentions. Remember this is a guy who said that he surrounded himself with the most radical marxist in his youth, to deny that this has no influence on his worldview is bullcock. So again, what's the big hang up?

Infact, if you ask many liberal democrats, they will have a favorable view of socialism, so why not embrace it?

In my view, Obama's take over of GM has rightfully earned him the label of socialist, since in this case a corporation is now property of the "people". His HC bill which forces insurance companies to cover all sorts of illnesses is not necessarily socialism outright, but more of a PLATOnic concept. He believes that the elites,( philosopher kings) are more adept in directing a nations policy. That's why he has added more "czars" to the govt to direct burueacracies on how to manage his goals.

Minus the lack of "cleansing of the spirit by the blood of war" and "ethnic pride" doctrines in his platform, right now he's closer to fascism than socialism because his policies want stronger central control of a market economy without having industry being property of the people.

Infact, no one has a problem calling him a progressive. So if you were to look at the history of progressives, you will find marxist and socialist aswell as fascist elements in that movement.

Progressivism in the end is just progression to socialism. I've talked to many progressives and they all admit this. Also the NSO party on campuses across our state advocate progressive reform.

Sure, why not?

Just don't pretend like the GOP isn't, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Sure, why not?

---

Why not? For the reason that many people think that this is character assasination on der leader.

That never stopped you before.

I think that some of my friends who are democrats are genuinely socialists.

I think that Obama is too much of a politician to be a socialist, Igni, and my reason for thinking that is the very thing you point out...he is always open to changing his mind, and his position, as is virtually ANY politician. (see George W., see Romney, see Clinton as the archetype of the 'blowin' in the wind' guy.

Having said that, I don't much care if people want to call him a socialist...there are a lot worse things people call him, and I'm more concerned about those things that folks believe give them permission to treat him as less than a sitting president of the U.S.

Obama doesn't care anymore that people call him is a socialist. They are saying that's why people voted for him.

Quote:

---

and I'm more concerned about those things that folks believe give them permission to treat him as less than a sitting president of the U.S.

---

There is that. His predecessor faced similar public distempers for longer, but there is something dissonant about solid, establishmentarian conservatives abjuring normal constitutional order.

Good luck, Mr. Obama. You'll need a lot.

Eh, we're already a socialist nation by many definitions. The label is quickly losing its value as an attack.

You'll have to think of another one. "Antichrist" is making the rounds.

Because he simply ain't socialist. You could probably call him social democrat but it's kinda long, probably hard to pronounce and doesn't bring up images of doom and gloom, gulags and other shit. No way to run a populist opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
• An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
• A secular and a socially progressive policy.
• Immigration and multiculturalism.
• Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
• Fair trade over free trade.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

It mostly fits, I think.

but if you really want to find a socialist, few tips for what to look for:

• close to 0% unemployment (you'll get and keep a job, screw the bottom line) -- Cuba has it at 1.9%
• 100% or so tariffs on imports, perhaps even legal limits on what can be imported (you've got to protect those artificiality created jobs)
• government-controlled pricing of basic items - food, fuel... (because those artificiality created jobs don't pay so well you have to ensure that people don't starve)
• it's nowhere in rulebook, but socialist leaders are usually damn hard to get rid of and most often leave their positions feet first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeromass

Because he simply ain't socialist. You could probably call him social democrat but it's kinda long, probably hard to pronounce and doesn't bring up images of doom and gloom, gulags and other shit. No way to run a populist opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
• An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
• A secular and a socially progressive policy.
• Immigration and multiculturalism.
• Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
• Fair trade over free trade.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

It mostly fits, I think.

but if you really want to find a socialist, few tips for what to look for:

• close to 0% unemployment (you'll get and keep a job, screw the bottom line) -- Cuba has it at 1.9%
• 100% or so tariffs on imports, perhaps even legal limits on what can be imported (you've got to protect those artificiality created jobs)
• government-controlled pricing of basic items - food, fuel... (because those artificiality created jobs don't pay so well you have to ensure that people don't starve)
• it's nowhere in rulebook, but socialist leaders are usually damn hard to get rid of and most often leave their positions feet first

---

+1000

Whoever calls him a socialist doesn't really know what socialism is. It really reflects ignorance on part of the speaker, instead of reflecting poorly on the prez.

And I completely agree that a social democrat is a more fitting description.

Obama is way to pro-business to ever be considered a socialist..the govt take over of a private business during an economic crisis has precedent, it simply the govt. bailing out the business while it reorganizes through bankruptcy, in other words, dumps it debt..and like the past, GM will be a totally private entity soon..

Quote:

---

Infact, no one has a problem calling him a progressive. So if you were to look at the history of progressives, you will find marxist and socialist aswell as fascist elements in that movement.

---

Actually, a lot of people do have a problem calling him a progressive...progressives wanted a single-payer or govt. option in health-care reform....much less than Obama delivered...

..and just look at the pro-business aspect of the mandate...that is a corporate entitlement plain and simple...

He's pretty much Bush II.

As far as pro-business tendencies go you may not be too far off, but I question whether Bush 2 would have ever gotten to any type of health-care reform ever....plus, financial regulation reform to protect consumers is next, meaning more federal oversight...

The way I see it call him whatever you want, as long as you are not lying and saying he reflects the ideals of our constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The way I see it call him whatever you want, as long as you are not lying and saying he reflects the ideals of our constitution.

---

You mean like Bush? - seriously, the Constitution is open to interpretation, that's part of what makes it a great document...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

As far as pro-business tendencies go you may not be too far off, but I question whether Bush 2 would have ever gotten to any type of health-care reform ever...

---

Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare entitlement? Tough to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

You mean like Bush? - seriously, the Constitution is open to interpretation, that's part of what makes it a great document...

---

Get a good dictionary that reflects what the words mean when the constitution was formed and you will find there is not very much room for misinterpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare entitlement? Tough to say.

---

touche'

..but unlike Obama's 'reform' there are some consumer protections..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare entitlement? Tough to say.

---

You kidding, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You kidding, right?

---

What part do you take issue with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The way I see it call him whatever you want, as long as you are not lying and saying he reflects the ideals of our constitution.

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare entitlement? Tough to say.

---

Is it really tough to say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

What part do you take issue with?

---

You don't know that Bush created a new (back then) unfunded healthcare entitlement during his presidency?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

You don't know that Bush created a new (back then) unfunded healthcare entitlement during his presidency?

---

Yeah I was kidding, being sarcastic, whatever, just pointing out that their isn't a tremendous difference between Bush & Obama (except for the type of rhetoric they use). I assumed you were looking to argue that Obama's healthcare entitlement was fully funded or something.

"I don't get why the big hub ub over calling him a socialist."

because It's A Lie that you dumbfucks keep repeating to fool the dumbfuck sheeple, bubbas, red-staters, scrotum sucker losers into thinking it's true, like the numerous Big Lies that conservatives and Repugs have been repeating for years, WMD, Saddam-AQ, Saddam-WTC, "free market", govt is the enemy, terrorist fist bump, etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The way I see it call him whatever you want, as long as you are not lying and saying he reflects the ideals of our constitution.

---

I agree, but would you say the same thing about Bush? That'd be the honest thing to do. Personally...I'd rather have a President (the SYMBOL of our country), shitting on our futures via domestic policy (at the cost of dollars) than shitting on our futures via foreign policy (at the cost of dollars AND human lives).

"Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare entitlement?"

Would he?

HE DID.

Medicare Part D,

Medicare Advantage,

$50B subsidies so for-profit insurers would offer Medicare Advantage (which costs govt 10%+ than standard Medicare),

denial of Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate single-buyer volume discounts with BigPharma.

All unfunded and done in 2003 Prez election year.

aka, "taxpayer funded" (Repug) Presidential campaign. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

I agree, but would you say the same thing about Bush? That'd be the honest thing to do. Personally...I'd rather have a President (the SYMBOL of our country), shitting on our futures via domestic policy (at the cost of dollars) than shitting on our futures via foreign policy (at the cost of dollars AND human lives).

---

Are you serious?

I don't agree with your assessment to begin with on the foreign policy issue. The only way for president Bush not to shit on others would be to tuck our tails between our legs and let them have their way with us.

I don't know about you, but I'm not one to willingly be fucked over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare entitlement?"

Would he?

HE DID.

Medicare Part D,

Medicare Advantage,

$50B subsidies so for-profit insurers would offer Medicare Advantage (which costs govt 10%+ than standard Medicare),

denial of Medicare/Medicaid to negotiate single-buyer volume discounts with BigPharma.

All unfunded and done in 2003 Prez election year.

aka, "taxpayer funded" (Repug) Presidential campaign. :lol

---

Who was paying for it anyway?

I am against most social spending programs except for our elderly and handicapped. Liberals like all spending programs except this part D. Why? I think it's because democrats promised to fix it for 40 years and never did and are pissed that republicans did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Who was paying for it anyway?

I am against most social spending programs except for our elderly and handicapped. Liberals like all spending programs except this part D. Why? I think it's because democrats promised to fix it for 40 years and never did and are pissed that republicans did.

---

Well the GOP did find a way to not pay for it... I guess you are proud of this part of the fix..:toast

WC, Repugs fixed what EXACTLY?

They hate govt in principle and intended/intend to break it at every chance, not FIX it.

In practice, the Repugs spend as much as the Dems.

eg, $2T+ for Iraq and Afghanistan, totally unfunded, totally botched, totally useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Yeah I was kidding, being sarcastic, whatever, just pointing out that their isn't a tremendous difference between Bush & Obama (except for the type of rhetoric they use). I assumed you were looking to argue that Obama's healthcare entitlement was fully funded or something.

---

:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xeromass

Because he simply ain't socialist. You could probably call him social democrat but it's kinda long, probably hard to pronounce and doesn't bring up images of doom and gloom, gulags and other shit. No way to run a populist opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

• A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
• An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
• Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
• Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
• A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
• A secular and a socially progressive policy.
• Immigration and multiculturalism.
• Youth rights and lowering the voting age.
• Fair trade over free trade.
• A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
• Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

It mostly fits, I think.

but if you really want to find a socialist, few tips for what to look for:

• close to 0% unemployment (you'll get and keep a job, screw the bottom line) -- Cuba has it at 1.9%
• 100% or so tariffs on imports, perhaps even legal limits on what can be imported (you've got to protect those artificiality created jobs)
• government-controlled pricing of basic items - food, fuel... (because those artificiality created jobs don't pay so well you have to ensure that people don't starve)
• it's nowhere in rulebook, but socialist leaders are usually damn hard to get rid of and most often leave their positions feet first

---

Thanks for proving my point. Your argument is petty.

Social Democrats are Socialist. They are the more liberal of the two branches of Socialism. They are the reformers, who advocate state control of capital in a market economy rather than those who advocate the complete nationalisation of the economy.

Infact, in europe, Social Democrats consider themselves Socialist. It's only in america where that word has a negative connotation that you see douchebag social democrats try to dissociate themselves from that word. Instead they rename themselves in order to scam the public under new monikers like "progressives" etc. They do this all the time by renaming unpopular policies like the "stimulus" bill, to a newer more empathetic name like the "jobs" bill.

Under your purity definition, CHina would not be considered socialist. But your definition is crap and decieving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you serious?

I don't agree with your assessment to begin with on the foreign policy issue. The only way for president Bush not to shit on others would be to tuck our tails between our legs and let them have their way with us.

I don't know about you, but I'm not one to willingly be fucked over.

---

Yes, I'm serious (for once!). Not letting "them" have their way with us? NEWSFLASH, they totally could've done it under the Bush administration and right now if "they" wanted to...all Bush did was ensure the Islamofascists have more propaganda and dead bodies to parade in front of a new generation of terrorists. What have Iraq and Afghanistan accomplished for our security that couldn't have been solved by saying "alright, world, fuck ya'll, we're bringing everyone back and doing shit for ourselves now without you (in regards to energy and shit like that)?" Didn't the Republicans (the only other choice in our politcal dramedy theatre) want to "drill baby drill and stop our dependence on foreign oil?" Guess what, we have no need to be in the Middle East if it isn't for oil because it sure as hell isn't for security here and in that region. They will blow each other up regardless if we are there, they did it before and they will do it after. "They" could bend you and me over right now without the slightest need for OUR consent, they could reduce us back to space dust regardless of the "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" mentality.

But "oh noes, the socialist black dude from Kenya wants to bankrupt us all, take away our money"...that's much worse atrocity, ya. Far worse to create a system of healthcare (no matter how inconvenient for 60% of the population) than a system of nation building and idiocy (no matter how safe it makes 60% of the population feel) :depressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iggy

Under your purity definition, CHina would not be considered socialist. But your definition is crap and decieving.

---

Nomenclature is a bitch.

From the standpoint of ideological purity not only are most Republicans not even conservative, they are factually socialist in the very sense you applied the word to Obama.

The continual growth of the US debt, government and spending has been an unmistakably bipartisan effort.

I noticed some people think that if you dislike Obama, it means you liked Bush or vice versa. This is a very interesting concept. For example, person A may say: "Obama is doing this..." and person B will say "Bush never did that??"

Also, it's a petty thing but why say "repug" and "dem" when on a keyboard you could just say republican and democrat.

It is petty. Some people think its cute.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by v2freak

I noticed some people think that if you dislike Obama, it means you liked Bush or vice versa. This is a very interesting concept. For example, person A may say: "Obama is doing this..." and person B will say "Bush never did that??"

Also, it's a petty thing but why say "repug" and "dem" when on a keyboard you could just say republican and democrat.

---

What most of have a problem with is those who are complaining about Obama were silent during the Bush years..

For example , after we went to war and evidence came out after the fact that the administration misused intelligence to justify the war.. silence........and now we have the same people calling Obama the biggest liar ever because all healthcare negotiations weren't on CSPAN.. comprende?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

What most of have a problem with is those who are complaining about Obama were silent during the Bush years..

---

If you say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

He has been on record of supporting socialized medicine and single payor

---

he has? when ? perhaps some links and statements would be nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Nomenclature is a bitch.

From the standpoint of ideological purity not only are most Republicans not even conservative, they are factually socialist in the very sense you applied the word to Obama.

---

here, here. but now you are just making too much sense for this thread.

Congresspeople and senators nearly always parodying party lines over the wills of their local voters and taxpayers is socialist IMO. Nothing is good for an entire nation of 307 million people; progress is important, but not at the expense of the "little" people's will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by z0sa

progress is important, but not at the expense of the "little" people's will.

---

Who is "little" people?

I'm curious - what part of socialism entails opening up more offshore areas for drilling so that oil companies can profit from it?

Good question, GME.

Maybe fascism will start to supplant socialism as the slur of first resort. It's more accurate, but unfortunately for GOP aficionadoes, it also includes the GOP.