Is Obama a Socialist?

[steelish]

Ah, the "silent majority", I remember them from British politics. They don't vote, they don't show up on opinion polls, but we know they are there and only we speak up for them, so we're really in the majority even if we look like a handful of radicals.

On the Left the equivalent imaginary constituency is called "the workers" or "the people".

Obviously it's not the "silent majority". The recent voting results show that.

[denuseri]

Frustration over his breaking of campaign promises and many of the other moves he has made since in office however in reality has only a small part to do with his closeted socialist standing or expressed political views so much as his actual deeds in comparrison to unmet public expectations.

Kinda like the anticipation of a long awaited movie being far greater than the movie itself.

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

Most people who rise to power have the same wishes or wish to apear too.

Now that he is in power however the reality that said power is actualy quite limited (even when one has a majority in both houses and the high court behind them (or soon to be).

Additonally, with things like the war to control the rescources of the middle east for global corperate masters (who are really in charge), shrouded under the viel of Rome protecting its empire from the barbarians at the gates er oh Im sorry I mean the USA and the rest of the free world working as equals to stop the threat of terrorism...(though it could be a two birds with one stone thing I suppose) he has pretty much followed the play book drawn up for him by other more knowledgable individuals before him such as Rumsfield and Chenney that was left conviently in place amongst all the executive branches for defence and intell staff/agencies from which he was briefed as to the real deal when he took office. Something Ive been told is a wake up call like no other for a new president ellect.

After all we cant have the newly elected kid on the block "figure head" striking out into new ground where it really matters to the real powers behind the throne now can we?

When you look at what he has done conserning health care and imigration and other areas along with the war and foriegn relations you start to see what kind of short leash the corperate powers that be have their new man in washington on.

And thats got very little to do with political orientations of theoretical dogmas, so much as the hard realities of supply, demand, and economic control.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

[steelish]

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

True. But the thing he wants to "fix" is the Constitution, and by changing that, he changes America. He freely admits that he sought out the Marxists and radicals while in college. Now he is in a position to "create" the kind of world he wants.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

Not necessarily. Free market capitalism relies upon the fellow man. You get by on your merits and quality of your goods in a free market capitalist society. In a socialist society, much of what you rely upon for living is "purchased" from the government or doled out by the government.

[MMI]

Free market capitalism relies upon the fellow man. You get by on your merits and quality of your goods in a free market capitalist society.

You get by if you have capital and you fail if you don't. Merit? Quality? Don't make me laugh.

And Michael Martine's activities mark him out as a capitalist, not as an "unbiased political scientist".

[steelish]

You get by if you have capital and you fail if you don't. Merit? Quality? Don't make me laugh.

And Michael Martine's activities mark him out as a capitalist, not as an "unbiased political scientist".

For your first statement - do you really think a little privately owned restaurant (a mom-and-pop establishment) that makes poor quality dishes, is dirty, people get sick from eating there, etc. will stay in business in America?

As to the second statement - he wrote positive notes on both systems, as well as negative ones. He was unbiased, no matter what you want to call him.

[MMI]

For your first statement - do you really think a little privately owned restaurant (a mom-and-pop establishment) that makes poor quality dishes, is dirty, people get sick from eating there, etc. will stay in business in America?

As to the second statement - he wrote positive notes on both systems, as well as negative ones. He was unbiased, no matter what you want to call him.

1. McDonalds?

2. I can say balanced things about capitalism, and sometimes I do. It doesn't stop me being biased in favour of social democracy, whatever you want to call me. Martine is openly and unapologetically conservative, and drives the point home with a patronising page addressed to Liberals, by which he seems to mean anyone to the left of his position. He was biased, certes

[leo9]

True. But the thing he wants to "fix" is the Constitution, and by changing that, he changes America.

I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?

[steelish]

I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?

That's not what I am talking about. He stated, "The Constitution is fundamentally flawed"

FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.

That's the same as saying it needs to be fixed. That the document we were founded on is incorrect.

[MMI]

That's not what I am talking about. He stated, "The Constitution is fundamentally flawed"

FUNDAMENTALLY flawed.

That's the same as saying it needs to be fixed. That the document we were founded on is incorrect.

Fundamentally flawed ...hmmm. Well it sure wasn't handed down from on high, like the Ten Commandments were. If the US Constitution were divinely ordained, then it would never need to be fixed. As it is, however, it was written by inter alia merchants, trading with the enemy, land dealers, stealing land from the Crown, and other speculators - none of whom saw any reason why they should pay for the defence they had sought from Britain, and all of whom were ready to get the French, Dutch, Russians and Spanish to fight their wars for them.

(Yet look how America sneers at Europe now, and the French especially.)

There is nothing sacrosanct about ANY part of the Constitution, and, indeed it has already been amended many times, and even some amendements have been amended.

[DuncanONeil]

Administrations do not "amend" the Constitution.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

And this is the most recent amendment!
"Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 5/7/1992
History
Article 1, Section 6 "

I am only an ignorant foreigner, but I had the impression that one or two previous Administrations had amended the Constitution without being judged as subversives. Wasn't there someone who wanted to put in an amendment about gay marriage? Or was that another lie by the liberal media?

[DuncanONeil]

Nothing closeted about it! He has been very clear in his beliefs.
Calling him socialist is actually being nice. There is evidence that he is more progressive than socialist. And as hard as it may be to believe they are worse than socialists.

Frustration over his breaking of campaign promises and many of the other moves he has made since in office however in reality has only a small part to do with his closeted socialist standing or expressed political views so much as his actual deeds in comparrison to unmet public expectations.

Kinda like the anticipation of a long awaited movie being far greater than the movie itself.

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

Most people who rise to power have the same wishes or wish to apear too.

Now that he is in power however the reality that said power is actualy quite limited (even when one has a majority in both houses and the high court behind them (or soon to be).

Additonally, with things like the war to control the rescources of the middle east for global corperate masters (who are really in charge), shrouded under the viel of Rome protecting its empire from the barbarians at the gates er oh Im sorry I mean the USA and the rest of the free world working as equals to stop the threat of terrorism...(though it could be a two birds with one stone thing I suppose) he has pretty much followed the play book drawn up for him by other more knowledgable individuals before him such as Rumsfield and Chenney that was left conviently in place amongst all the executive branches for defence and intell staff/agencies from which he was briefed as to the real deal when he took office. Something Ive been told is a wake up call like no other for a new president ellect.

After all we cant have the newly elected kid on the block "figure head" striking out into new ground where it really matters to the real powers behind the throne now can we?

When you look at what he has done conserning health care and imigration and other areas along with the war and foriegn relations you start to see what kind of short leash the corperate powers that be have their new man in washington on.

And thats got very little to do with political orientations of theoretical dogmas, so much as the hard realities of supply, demand, and economic control.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

[denuseri]

They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

[steelish]

They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

Sorry, I have to disagree. In a free market, you purchase from a retailer or merchant and in turn, that merchant or retailer spends the money they receive and the market grows and prospers. If they provide poor service or the quality of product is poor, their business suffers as a result and the market ebbs and flows naturally. In socialism, when the government is full of entitlement programs and provides and/or sells much of what the "consumer" needs, the money does not flow through the market, nor is there any consequence to the government for poor service or a poor quality product. It's almost a one-way street. Remember the lines for food in Russia?

[DuncanONeil]

No they are not!

In a capitalist system I make a product. I take the risk of putting my resources into the product. I make a good product and a perceived good price and I succeed.

In a socialist system the government makes all the products. The is no reward or incentive for me to improve or do a better job. Further if the product is shoddy or perceived of as too expensive (i.e. poor value) I have no choice. There is only one source!

They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

[steelish]

Besides, in a barter system you exchange something of value for something that you view to be of equal value. The government can demand whatever value (cost) they want for whatever the deem to bestow upon their citizens.

[DuncanONeil]

Besides, in a barter system you exchange something of value for something that you view to be of equal value. The government can demand whatever value (cost) they want for whatever the deem to bestow upon their citizens.

Just look at the "cost" of your drivers license! In my state at least it is only supposed to cost what it costs the state to produce it for me. I even have to pay an extra fee to see the person at the counter, and a "convenience" fee to do it online.

[denuseri]

And in those cases that you so eloquently pointed out: a service provider fails to provide sufficently for the demand (government controled or otherwise)...those doing the demanding go elsewhere (as they did to the blackmarket in russia)....hence its still econmoics 101 hard at work.

Its the difference between theory and reality.

[DuncanONeil]

And in those cases that you so eloquently pointed out: a service provider fails to provide sufficently for the demand (government controled or otherwise)...those doing the demanding go elsewhere (as they did to the blackmarket in russia)....hence its still econmoics 101 hard at work.

Its the difference between theory and reality.

You realize that the "black market" in a socialist system is capitalism. Capitalism that exists because the socialist system fails the customer!

[steelish]

You realize that the "black market" in a socialist system is capitalism. Capitalism that exists because the socialist system fails the customer!

PERFECT! I couldn't figure out a way to explain that.

[steelish]

Here's an unbiased opinion posted by a political scientist. I quite enjoyed reading it.

[denuseri]

One should realize that in socialism the government doesnt nessesarally own everything only some things...just like here in the USA.

The point I am making is one of the reality of economic preceptions: IE every economic system to date in human history has basically worked the same in the end regardless of who owned what portions of production and or suppy and or consumption/demand.

Necessity is ultimately unescapable as the ocean in which the economic boat is driven regardless of who is at the helm.

Weather the village cron is assisting in midwifery for the exchange of a couple chickens or out of the goodness of her heart knowing someday the mother will perhaps return the favor, or by the direction of the king whom she submits to for what land he grants her to live upon and ply her trade for food...the laws of equivelant exchange still prevail.

[DuncanONeil]

so·cial·ism
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

so·cial·ism
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Encyclopedia of Economics
* | Socialism

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on.

Dictionary: so·cial·ism (West's Encyclopedia of American Law.
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Seems to me all the definitions place ownership and or control in the hands of the Government? Your example does not apply. Grant of land and freedom to set prices for a service are not equivalent to socialism. Ownership of land by the "Lord", their decision as to what a person's work will be, setting the price for that work, now that is socialism. Your eaxmple is actually capitalist.

One should realize that in socialism the government doesnt nessesarally own everything only some things...just like here in the USA.

The point I am making is one of the reality of economic preceptions: IE every economic system to date in human history has basically worked the same in the end regardless of who owned what portions of production and or suppy and or consumption/demand.

Necessity is ultimately unescapable as the ocean in which the economic boat is driven regardless of who is at the helm.

Weather the village cron is assisting in midwifery for the exchange of a couple chickens or out of the goodness of her heart knowing someday the mother will perhaps return the favor, or by the direction of the king whom she submits to for what land he grants her to live upon and ply her trade for food...the laws of equivelant exchange still prevail.

[denuseri]

Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?

The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.

Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.

[steelish]

Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?

The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.

Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.

You're speaking of illegal items/trade. LEGAL items are often on the black market in a socialist country.

[Thorne]

There's a huge difference between using an underground economy to purchase luxuries (non-medicinal drugs, prostitutes, etc.) and being forced to use that underground economy to purchase necessities (food, clean water, clothing) because the government can't supply sufficient quantities. This is the kind of thing that happened in the USSR. But only for the common people. The party elite always had enough, with their own private stores.

[DuncanONeil]

May be puh-tey-tohes - puh-tah-tohes but the issue is actually called illegal. Black-market transactions typically occur as a way for participants to avoid government price controls or taxes.

Then what is it in a so called capitalist country?

The drug trade is a prime example of a demand not being allowed by the state and yet a supply is developed for it and continues to exist unabated despite it. Same with protitution where thats illegal.

Black markets dont care if your a proponent of communisim, socialism, captitalism, or any other ideologies used to explain economic theory. When one devlopes to meet a supply for a demand it is simpley the current of economic nescesity doing what it does regardless of what you call it or how you try to control it.

[Darkness_within]

YES HE IS, change in some ways are good, but for the most part America is wonderful as it is, if we change it to much, we may make the rest of the world happy.. BUT will we still be the U.S.A?, NO COUNTRY IS PERFICT, BUT DAMN WE ARE SO GOOD, FUCK ALL THAT, THIS AND THAT SHIT, IN THE END WE ARE SO GOOD AS WE ARE, WE MUST GROW YES, BUT LET IT BE OUR GROWTH NOT THE WORLDS. WE WILL MAKE MISTAKES AND FUCK UP TO THE HILT, BUT IT WILL BE OURS NOT THE WOLD AT LARGE

[tyrannyoferos]

Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.

[DuncanONeil]

Unlike the out of control spending and deficits soring to the heavens presented by the party of the non-right, can't call them left they don't like that.
* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.

[steelish]

Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.

Party of Southern racists? Anyone against Obama's policies are racist?

I find it deplorable what Abramoff did to the Indians. I abhor racism. I also get fed up with people playing the race card as if it is the only argument they can find.

Take note - I couldn't stand Bush and his policies either. Many of our presidents since before the great depression have been Progressives, whether they labeled themselves as Liberal or otherwise, they were Progressives. They've been slowly chipping away at our Constitution and adding to their executive powers for years. That doesn't detract from the speed at which Obama is doing it.