Reply With Quote
Exactly.
No need to backpedal now.
There always have been state interventionism, including in the Reagan years. Hardly a socialist trait. Same thing with deficits.
And you still haven't demonstrated where this administration has expanded the state?
Exactly.
leave it to you to analyze sarcasm. my point is that the intervention of the state on behalf of the corporate sector, and for the intention of preserving its primarily capitalist endeavors, is hardly socialist. the whole point of socialism is to take power away from the bourgeois not to enhance it. it is too empower the proletariat, not cripple it even more.
Again, too many dots to connect.
Agreed. But that isn't exactly a surprise. All socialist governments tend to fail.
I wasn't backpedalling. I simply didn't say that "Obama had executive powers as President of the USA before January 20, 2009". I'm even surprised you needed to ask that.
I still can't understand your theory. The fact that has always been state interventionism is the reason why Obama's statism isn't statism? That's funny.There always have been state interventionism
Socialism has always concentrated power in the hands of a few. That's not a coincident, it's a consequence of its principles. The incompetence of socialists to recognize the necessary consequence of the principles of their philosophy is another different issue.
That's a paradox. Intervention of the state, except to regulate against force or fraud, kills capitalism.is that the intervention of the state on behalf of the corporate sector, and for the intention of preserving its primarily capitalist endeavors,
Calling massive government expansions, like the bail-out or the stimulus programs, capitalism is just bizarre. In capitalism, entrepreneurs survive and prosper accordingly to their capacity to satisfy the consumer, not due to their ability to meddle with the government. Obviously, if statists weren't always expanding the government, this wouldn't be an issue.
LOL... not what I meant. But this thread is a glaring example of your constant deflection of topics.
You still are backpedaling. Obama had no legal authority to do what you claimed he had legal authority to do.
Reagan was a statist? You need to make up your mind, THEN make a post. That way, you won't need to backpedal as much. You also get bonus points for keeping threads short and concise and not looking like an idiot.
Gotta hand it to mogro... it takes some doing to get the entire political spectrum of this board to call you a clown.
Okay, what did you mean?
I didn't claim he had a legal authority, did I?You still are backpedaling. Obama had no legal authority to do what you claimed he had legal authority to do.
Here, google "Obama extends bailout" or something.
I don't care much for arguing formalities. The only reason the bail-out didn't expire was because Obama asked and fought for his extension.
I'd appreciate if you could avoid ad hominen attacks or completely lateral stuff that adds little to the discussion. Thanks.But this thread is a glaring example of your constant deflection of topics(..) You need to make up your mind, THEN make a post. That way, you won't need to backpedal as much. You also get bonus points for keeping threads short and concise and not looking like an idiot.
I'd also appreciate if you could answer this question:
I still can't understand your theory. The fact that has always been state interventionism is the reason why Obama's statism isn't statism?
If Reagan was a statist - or to which extent have Reagan Administrations followed statist policies - is a more interesting question, there was a lot of mixed signals coming from Reagan. The other day I reviewed a paper from a LSE student that addressed this particular subject. I've never sided with Prof. Rothbard, but I think it's an issue that needs more historical and economical research.
Can someone indicate a couple of presidents/prime-ministers that can aptly be described as socialists if Obama isn't one?
I meant that for the socialist rhetoric he spouted during the campaign trail, he has failed to live up to those socialist claims.
That you don't care for formalities doesn't mean they do not exist. You don't seem to care for anything that points at you being wrong.
I would avoid lateral stuff if you would too, but all you do is deflect and go straight for the strawman. How about you answer my question first:
Chavez would be one. Kirchner would be another.
All the "social democrat"/left parties in Europe as opposed to the "Christian democrat"/right parties.
François Mitterrand would be a European one
"It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife".
Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed and explain why they make him a socialist?
No . That's a worthy accomplishment.
You mean "economic. "
Economical means "affordable" in English.
Why should only the rich be able to afford economic research?
Why do you hate the poor?
Which one? The one for the first 2 years of his mandate, the one of the 110 Propositions pour la France, probably (although there are lots of things in common, including the massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers to private hands), but what exactly differentiates the cohabitation/Rocard Miterrand of Obama? When his initial keynesian policies failed, Miterrand smartly and swiftly corrected his course. Well, he's the father of the CAP and the creator of the oligarchy of European millionaire farmers; but will Obama veto the new farm bill?
Yeah, I guess Chavez and Kirchner are more socialist than Obama. But should we reserve the label "socialist" for complete nutcases like those two?
Really? Are Obama/Pelosi/Reid that different from Blair or Brown? Why? Who else? Zapatero? He's probably to the right of Obama, right now, embarking in massive spending cuts and privatizations. Ditto for Socrates. Fyamann? The SPO uses to be well to the left of the US Dems, but Faymann is the exception. Who else are the other Socialist/social-democrat in power in Europe as of now? Most countries have center-right governments now. The new guys in Greece, but I doubt it really matters, they'll follow whatever the IMF and Alumnia tell them to do. Oh, the DLP in Romania, but those guys these days are less socialist than DeMint.
Exactly how many European government leaders would fall to the left of Obama right now? 2, 3? Who?
KEynes gives elected officials to give large contracts to the ones who helped them get elected. I think that has been the theories popularity over the years. That and the upper class supports it. However his theory is built around the idea that the govt. is the only answer to fixing the economy ( a statement bho has said) I take as a Socialist notion. Who knows what a politician thinks when no one is around. Should we talk about precise ideas that are Socialist? I think his comment about using taxes to even the playing field is socialist.I know you did, and I just called you out for that. Keynes was such a socialist that almost all capitalist governments adopted its policy recommendations in the 50's and 60's, including the USA.
I'm still waiting for the list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B80ES20091209
Obama to extend bailout fund
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-1...m-jobs-program
Obama administration extends bailout program
it's odd how he continues to claim that his position is plausible.
It's a good thing we aren't a bunch of high school girls who create clicks and belittle anything not agreed by the group speak.
Being called a clown by people who think stealing money from someone to give to someone else is considered helpful to anyone is like being called rude by Arrianna Huffington.
look who just created a clique.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
