Describe to how Obama is a Marxist/Socialist

[ProfJohn]

Didn't say he would be a socialist in Europe.

But typically the European way of running things is called "European socialism" or socialism light you might say.

Very large and very activists governments that have a hand in almost every aspect of your life. And I believe THAT is the mold that Obama wants to follow.

Look at the things he favors (single payer healthcare, cap & trade, pay czar) and listen to his speeches "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times"

He clearly believes that government should have a bigger role in our lives.

 

[EXman]

Even in Europe, many of the right-wing parties support public healthcare. He would not be a socialist in Euope.

In America European right wing parties would not be right wing.

They do not have our constitution. Who cares about Europe other than look at Greece it is what we aspire to become.

Obama is a hybrid Corporatist/Statist/Socialist. He believes his ideals are right and he will decide what people should get. Because he knows what is best for you all! He will take over huge sections of economies/bloated cash starved companies/and companies that do not align with in his thoughts he will regulate or reform into extinction.

He's Growing the government to become a huge part of the economy that it will be too big to let fail. Which will be a vicious cycle consuming more and more of the economy canabalizing what is left of our industries.

He wants Social Justice to reign. Not Liberty.

Obama will invite a foriegn leader to the whitehouse and let him badmouth our states and laws and agree with him even though. All the while the other countries policies are far worse.

He thinks Government knows best. And that we serve at his will.

He has surrounded himself with radicals and higher education elitist types that couldn't run a lemonade stand. And then wants these same assholes to refom and regulate all facets of government. A country cannot be run by idealogs that have zero practical skills just full of untested ideas.

Obama is a blamer not a leader. He blames then says he's in charge. wtg BHO! Sure got that BP licked. At this rate we'll own BP have the CEO and COO indicted and that well will still not be capped! This is straight out of the Socialists and Commies handbook on grabbing power. Blame and lay claim.

 

[UberNeuman]

He's not a socialist nor a Marxist. He's a corporatist. And the reason the Republicans aren't calling him that is because they are the same. Most Americans really don't understand any of those words anyway.

It is sad though, because the Obama administration can easily defend itself from socialism and Marxism, and they don't even have to defend the corporatist claim.

oh, ouch - too close to the truth of the matter...

 

[Jhhnn]

Didn't say he would be a socialist in Europe.

But typically the European way of running things is called "European socialism" or socialism light you might say.

Very large and very activists governments that have a hand in almost every aspect of your life. And I believe THAT is the mold that Obama wants to follow.

Look at the things he favors (single payer healthcare, cap & trade, pay czar) and listen to his speeches "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times"

He clearly believes that government should have a bigger role in our lives.

A hand in every aspect of your life... How does that work? What's the difference between the way a German, Dutch, French or Austrian person lives and the way an American lives on a daily basis? Or is that just the usual boogeyman?

Single Payer healthcare? The Obama Admin made no such proposal.

Pay Czar? You mean for the execs whose companies would have crumbled without govt assistance?

Nice fake quote, too... I'm still waiting for Danube to bring up some source for his earlier attribution...

 

[Steeplerot]

Obama is a socialist, lol you guys with your heads up the talk radio guys ass wouldn't know which way the wind blows even if Limbaugh farted.

 

[Danube]

Link up a quote for us, OK? Not from WND or similar, please....

Obama interview


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

"Coalitions of power for "redistributive change = Basic Marxist thinking^^^

 

[drebo]

Even in Europe, many of the right-wing parties support public healthcare. He would not be a socialist in Euope.

You need to get out of your mind the idea that what was proposed and passed was "public healthcare". It wasn't. It wasn't even close, and it was never intended to be. Despite what MSNBC says about it, it was never intended to "bring healthcare to the masses". Those who couldn't afford it before still can't afford it...only now they're penalized for not having it.

Obama's political policy is a-kin to throwing darts at a dartboard while blindfolded and being steered by cronies. It doesn't matter to him where the dart lands as long as his cronies are happy and he looks good doing it. As others have stated, Obama has some leanings toward socialism, but mostly he serves the will of his capitalistic buddies. Pass legislation that protects bankers from losses...pass legislation that feeds insurance companies new crops of customers and allows them to raise prices...I mean, seriously...all while using the guise of "public" healthcare and "bailout" and "too big to fail".

Obama would be infinitely better if he had atleast some cohesive direction in his political views, even if it were to the socialist side of things. At least at that point, he wouldn't be able to convince the idiot masses that he's the savior. Cronyism is bad no matter who does it, but Obama is much, much worse than anyone else. He's a puppet dictator for various industries.

 

[Danube]

Obama has some leanings toward socialism, but mostly he serves the will of his capitalistic buddies.

Hitler was the same way in his early days. He was elected on promise of jobs, national renewal etc. I don't compare Obama to Hitler (yet) but Obama playing nice with capitalists in his early days doesn't mean he's not socialistic. Obama is an opportunist before anything else.

 

[Jhhnn]

The "tragedy" you claim Obama identified was wrt the civil rights movement becoming court focused. Your quote has been clipped, as well. Here's the real end of the quoted passage-

I think you can, any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts -- I think that, as a practical matter, our institutions just are poorly equipped to do it.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280018

What Righties utterly fail to recognize is that the redistribution of income has been a feature of America's mixed economy since the 1930's, and that it's a necessary adjunct and restraint on capitalism. Well, that is, if we want to have democracy along with it. We've just done a piss-poor job of it from Reagan forward. Prior to that, income and estate taxes were much, much more progressive. Obviously, the America of the post-WW2 period wasn't socialist in a negative way, at all. That's when the broad middle class of today came into existence, its creation driven by policy on a multiplicity of levels.

Reagan and Bush era changes to the tax code shifted the burden of govt away from income and corporate taxes towards regressive payroll taxes in no small way, and also shifted the burden onto state and local govts as well. The result was that top 1&#37; share of national income grew from <9% to more >23% between 1980 and 2007. That trend has not been reversed. Allowing it to continue will result in a third world distribution of income. The only reason that hasn't been completely obvious has been the creation of enormous debt, which masks the effects, but only when the creation of more is ongoing. It's not sustainable today, just as it wasn't sustainable in the 1920's.

 

[Atreus21]

That aint no problem.

Back room deals with his insurance buddies to make people buy insurance no public option.
Back room deals with his pharma buddies to never negotiate drug prices which even the smallest HMO does.
Back room revolving door appointments like Salazer who doesnt even make BP do environmental assessment reports of deepest well ever, just drill baby drill.
Three bank bailout packages from poor tax payers to rich crookster bankers.
Credit card bill with no teeth just for consumer consumption.
Illegal immigration at behest of Chamber of Commerce who wants you to have zero labor rights thus lets increase supply of labor to infinity.
and so on.

Everything he does hurts the little guy and helps the powerful. Hardly a socialist let alone Marxist.

On the contrary. Socialism throughout history has brought about precisely the concentration of power and disenfranchisement of the little guy.

 

[Jaskalas]

Describe to how Obama is a Marxist/Socialist

Does he believe in big government? Case closed.

 

[Siddhartha]

I keep hearing this tossed around, so for the conservative members of the board would you describe this - and how it's bad for our country.

It is part of the effort to demonize Mr Obama by his political opponents using the old Joe McCarthy play of calling someone a commie.

Mr Obama is no more of a socialist\Marxist\commie than any POTUS since FDR.

Someone once told me if you and others tell the same big lie over and over again at the top of their voices eventually others will begin to believe the lie.

 

[woolfe9999]

Didn't say he would be a socialist in Europe.

But typically the European way of running things is called "European socialism" or socialism light you might say.

Very large and very activists governments that have a hand in almost every aspect of your life. And I believe THAT is the mold that Obama wants to follow.

Look at the things he favors (single payer healthcare, cap & trade, pay czar) and listen to his speeches "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times"

He clearly believes that government should have a bigger role in our lives.

Perhaps, though belief that "government should have a bigger role in our lives" is a relative term. Not everyone who believes that government should do any one or more things that you don't think it should do a "European socialist." Any sort of comparison with European socialism has to make specific reference to the particulars of those systems, and determine where Obama's philosophy coincides and does not coincide with them.

There's also a possible difference between what one believes privately and how one governs. You suppose that Obama favors single payor because he favored it some 8 years ago, and perhaps he only "changed his mind" for campaign purposes and because he could never get it through Congress. Even assuming you're correct, it doesn't really matter so much what he privately believes; it matters what he does and does not do.

- wolf

 

[evident]

Does he believe in big government? Case closed.

too simplistic of an answer

 

[feralkid]

Hitler was the same way in his early days. He was elected on promise of jobs, national renewal etc. I don't compare Obama to Hitler (yet) but Obama playing nice with capitalists in his early days doesn't mean he's not socialistic. Obama is an opportunist before anything else.

Why, no; why would anyone think that?

 

[nonlnear]

Does he believe in big government? Case closed.

This post does indeed pronounce a certain case closed, but not the one you think.

 

[irishScott]

Obama is a weak, naive, far left (for America) politician who smiled and speechified his way to power. He'll be out in a couple of years unless the right truly fucks up (which is certainly a possibility).

One thing for sure: He's got a couple of years to do it, but he needs something big to put on his resume if he's going to have a shot for reelection.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I agree. He's far from being a socialist. He's a corporatist or more of a "reverse socialist" who serves to redistribute wealth from the masses to business owners.

That aint no problem.

Back room deals with his insurance buddies to make people buy insurance no public option.
Back room deals with his pharma buddies to never negotiate drug prices which even the smallest HMO does.
Back room revolving door appointments like Salazer who doesnt even make BP do environmental assessment reports of deepest well ever, just drill baby drill.
Three bank bailout packages from poor tax payers to rich crookster bankers.
Credit card bill with no teeth just for consumer consumption.
Illegal immigration at behest of Chamber of Commerce who wants you to have zero labor rights thus lets increase supply of labor to infinity.
and so on.

Everything he does hurts the little guy and helps the powerful. Hardly a socialist let alone Marxist.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Does he believe in big government? Case closed.

So the Gipper and both Presidents Bush are also Socialists?

 

[Zebo]

The "tragedy" you claim Obama identified was wrt the civil rights movement becoming court focused. Your quote has been clipped, as well. Here's the real end of the quoted passage-



http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280018

What Righties utterly fail to recognize is that the redistribution of income has been a feature of America's mixed economy since the 1930's, and that it's a necessary adjunct and restraint on capitalism. Well, that is, if we want to have democracy along with it. We've just done a piss-poor job of it from Reagan forward. Prior to that, income and estate taxes were much, much more progressive. Obviously, the America of the post-WW2 period wasn't socialist in a negative way, at all. That's when the broad middle class of today came into existence, its creation driven by policy on a multiplicity of levels.

Reagan and Bush era changes to the tax code shifted the burden of govt away from income and corporate taxes towards regressive payroll taxes in no small way, and also shifted the burden onto state and local govts as well. The result was that top 1&#37; share of national income grew from <9% to more >23% between 1980 and 2007. That trend has not been reversed. Allowing it to continue will result in a third world distribution of income. The only reason that hasn't been completely obvious has been the creation of enormous debt, which masks the effects, but only when the creation of more is ongoing. It's not sustainable today, just as it wasn't sustainable in the 1920's.

another excellent post Jhhnn.

I'd just like to add all that debt created to stave off third world resemblance is owed to the same people who got all the tax breaks, the hyper rich. (Don't y'all tell me abut the 10 savings bonds grandma got you when graduatig HS either) In effect people were robbed twice and peoples high, regressive taxes today go to the hyper rich to service the debt. So will their childrens and their childrens childrens.

 

[Zebo]

On the contrary. Socialism throughout history has brought about precisely the concentration of power and disenfranchisement of the little guy.

Learn the terms of the debate before addressing me. Socialism calls for means of production to be owned by workers. Its never been tried in history in any country and in fact empowers the little guy by nature of control.

You mean communism which I don't disagree with.

 

[Zebo]

Perhaps, though belief that "government should have a bigger role in our lives" is a relative term. Not everyone who believes that government should do any one or more things that you don't think it should do a "European socialist." Any sort of comparison with European socialism has to make specific reference to the particulars of those systems, and determine where Obama's philosophy coincides and does not coincide with them.

There's also a possible difference between what one believes privately and how one governs. You suppose that Obama favors single payor because he favored it some 8 years ago, and perhaps he only "changed his mind" for campaign purposes and because he could never get it through Congress. Even assuming you're correct, it doesn't really matter so much what he privately believes; it matters what he does and does not do.

- wolf

Obama will never has as much power as he did the first year of his presidency and he didn't even try for public option or single payer - in fact he actively aided and abetted their censor and told congressmen who wanted it to STFU. "changed his mind" indeed.

 

[Danube]

The "tragedy" you claim Obama identified was wrt the civil rights movement becoming court focused. Your quote has been clipped, as well. Here's the real end of the quoted passage-



http://mediamatters.org/research/200810280018

What Righties utterly fail to recognize is that the redistribution of income has been a feature of America's mixed economy since the 1930's, and that it's a necessary adjunct and restraint on capitalism. Well, that is, if we want to have democracy along with it. We've just done a piss-poor job of it from Reagan forward. Prior to that, income and estate taxes were much, much more progressive. Obviously, the America of the post-WW2 period wasn't socialist in a negative way, at all. That's when the broad middle class of today came into existence, its creation driven by policy on a multiplicity of levels.

Reagan and Bush era changes to the tax code shifted the burden of govt away from income and corporate taxes towards regressive payroll taxes in no small way, and also shifted the burden onto state and local govts as well. The result was that top 1% share of national income grew from <9% to more >23% between 1980 and 2007. That trend has not been reversed. Allowing it to continue will result in a third world distribution of income. The only reason that hasn't been completely obvious has been the creation of enormous debt, which masks the effects, but only when the creation of more is ongoing. It's not sustainable today, just as it wasn't sustainable in the 1920's.

You totally slipped past Obama's attitude toward the Constitution - something reinforced by his appointment of lawyers (Harold Koh to State Dept) who are transnationalists and support international law and courts being allowed to abrogate the Constitution .

Saying redistribution of wealth has been used since the 30's as a necessery restraint on capitalism is a puerile argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Hongju_Koh

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A hand in every aspect of your life... How does that work? What's the difference between the way a German, Dutch, French or Austrian person lives and the way an American lives on a daily basis? Or is that just the usual boogeyman?

What I wonder, is, in spite of all the rhetoric about how awful socialism is, do people, by and large, have a higher quality of life in those evil European socialist people's states such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Germany, etc.?

As far as I know, they don't have to worry about health insurance issues, they don't have any medical bankruptcies, they don't have large masses of homeless people, they don't have deeply impoverished underclasses living in crime-filled ghettos (as far as I know), they don't have millions of people crushed by huge student loans who cannot find jobs in their fields, and people work shorter hours, fewer hours, and have much more vacation time.

So, are we really better off in the "capitalist" U.S. where 25% of the population owns 87% of the wealth?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

On the contrary. Socialism throughout history has brought about precisely the concentration of power and disenfranchisement of the little guy.

Like it did in most of Western Europe where people have a higher quality of life than people do in the United States?