Reply With Quote
Sure, why not?
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 bull . 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.
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.
There is that. His predecessor faced similar public distempers for longer, but there is something dissonant about solid, establishmentarian conservatives abjuring normal cons utional order.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.
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 . 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 compe ion.
- 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 en y soon..
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...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.
..and just look at the pro-business aspect of the mandate...that is a corporate en lement 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 cons ution.
You mean like Bush? - seriously, the Cons ution is open to interpretation, that's part of what makes it a great do ent...
Would Bush have created a new unfunded healthcare en lement? Tough to say.
Get a good dictionary that reflects what the words mean when the cons ution was formed and you will find there is not very much room for misinterpretation.
touche'
..but unlike Obama's 'reform' there are some consumer protections..
You kidding, right?
What part do you take issue with?
Is it really tough to say?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
