How is Obama NOT a Socialist?

[jillian]

I'm not even going to mention all the "conspiracies" linking him to Marxists in his early life or his solidarity with other Socialist dictators around the world.

But how is someone who preaches redistribution and wants to further Socialize our country not a Socialist?

Obviously, the hard-core Marxists don't welcome his as one of their own. But it's not as if he can do whatever he wants like it's all hunky-dory.

"Just because he sleeps wit other men doesn't mean he's gay."

you would actually have to have some understanding of what socialism is. and, frankly, particularly given the last part of your post, i figure you're uneducable anyway.

 

[occupied]

Of course you don't want to explain it. The effort is futile.

Again, was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890?

Lol you are not worth the typing it would take to explain something you are just going to reject out of hand, you are just about the worst excuse for a conservative I have ever encountered and totally uneducable.

So a god conservative is one who falls your socialist idiocies? You don't want to answer the question because you know it proves that your theories are moronic.

Of course I'm going to reject what you say out of hand. You're a socialist idiot. You also reject what I say out of hand, but I don't respond to your posts in the hopes that you will one day see the light. I know that's a fools hope. I respond to your post for the sake of lurkers who are educable. I know the minute they read a cogent argument against your delusions, they will easily see that your ideas are just plain wrong.

I may be a "socialist idiot" but I got you pegged. You are not interested in opposing opinions except as something to vent your rage on.

 

[expatriate]

Socialism is government control of the means of production. It's that simple. Any other definition is just political blather.

agreed... it is government control of the means of ALL Production.... not just slivers of it. For example, when the government took over a portion of GM for a limited period of time, it was not an example of "socialism" any more than it was when we bailed out Chrysler in 1980 or the savings and loan industry in 1989 or the airline industry in 2001 or Bear Stearns and AIG in 2008.

Sorry, but only stupid people swallow the claim that only 100% government control of production is socialism. There are degrees of socialism. Taking over GM is socialism, pure and simple. The government schools are an example of socialism. Social Security is socialism. Medicare is socialism. Medicaid is socialism.

NOTHING that Obama has said or done has given anyone any reason to realistically believe that he wants to nationalize the country's means of production... therefore to suggest that he is a socialist is just political blather, as you say.

Everything he says and does indicates he wants to nationalize the country's means of production. He effectively nationalized GM and Chrysler.

if there ARE degrees of socialism, and by advocating for degrees of it, Barack Obama is a socialist, then Ronald Reagan was a socialist as well. So was Bush Senior and Bush Jr. was Marx incarnate. (and I don't mean Karl ) But... the Bush Sr. bailout of the savings and loan industry dwarfs the bailout of the auto industry, but nobody has EVER compared George H.W. Bush to Marx. Why is that?

I'm curious... was the first government funded fire department an example of socialism as well? Isn't the military an example of socialism? Wouldn't we be less socialistic and more capitalistic if we just contracted out our national defense to private security firms?

 

[expatriate]

Thank you for your service ex.

And I'll see if I can help him with that one, since Wikipedia seems to be down for him.

Simply put, Socialists believe that when one man profits off the labor of another man he's exploiting him. That when you employ someone and pay them a salary while you're making considerably more thanks to their labor, you're outright stealing from them. That worker should be entitled to all the fruits of his labor. Therefore nobody should work for anybody, and everyone should work together for the collective good.

Am I right?

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Your "simply put" definition of socialism is not only overly simple, it is flat wrong. socialism does not care about inequality of income. socialism does not ascribe to the labor theory of value, nor the dialectic process of change, nor the vanguard of the proletariat, to name just a few of the differences. Socialism wants government to control the means of production... that's it. And nowhere has Obama shown that he wants government to control the means of production.

 

[tooAlive]

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Your "simply put" definition of socialism is not only overly simple, it is flat wrong. socialism does not care about inequality of income. socialism does not ascribe to the labor theory of value, nor the dialectic process of change, nor the vanguard of the proletariat, to name just a few of the differences. Socialism wants government to control the means of production... that's it. And nowhere has Obama shown that he wants government to control the means of production.

I think your definition is the overly simply one.

Explain to me why the government would want control over the means of production? It's so the few government elite can live like kings at the expense of their laboring citizen-slaves working for the "collective good."

I think if you ask any socialist he would agree that allowing one man to open up a factory, hire a bunch of people, and profit from their labor is morally wrong.

That's what I was referring to in my "overly simple" description of socialism. I think it's pretty accurate.

 

[expatriate]

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Your "simply put" definition of socialism is not only overly simple, it is flat wrong. socialism does not care about inequality of income. socialism does not ascribe to the labor theory of value, nor the dialectic process of change, nor the vanguard of the proletariat, to name just a few of the differences. Socialism wants government to control the means of production... that's it. And nowhere has Obama shown that he wants government to control the means of production.

I think your definition is the overly simply one.

Explain to me why the government would want control over the means of production? It's so the few government elite can live like kings at the expense of their laboring citizen-slaves working for the "collective good."

I think if you ask any socialist he would agree that allowing one man to open up a factory, hire a bunch of people, and profit from their labor is morally wrong.

That's what I was referring to in my "overly simple" description of socialism. I think it's pretty accurate.

You want me to explain to you why socialism wants what it wants? why not ask a socialist philosopher? There are plenty of countries in the world FAR more socialistic than we ever will be and THEY have private ownership of plenty of industry and those industrialists in those countries open factories and profit from the labor of their employees all the time. Take Sweden, for example... WAY further down the socialist scale than the US by a LONG shot... yet Volvo, who is run by Carl-Henric Svanberg, opens factories and hires people and profits a TON from their labor and nobody in Sweden is calling Volvo immoral. I don't think that any national politician in America today would say - or even think - that opening factories in America and employing Americans was morally wrong.

You basically are spewing gobbledygook.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Can someone explain how a guy who wants a 39.6% top marginal tax rate, and who signed a massive bill that is essentially a colossal gift to private insurance companies, is a socialist?

Maybe we should all agree on what "socialism" is before we throw that word around as easily as the Left throws around the term "racist".

.

 

[francoHFW]

COMMUNISM controls production, socialism simply regulates it so it doesn't screw the workers, the customers, and the environment, and is ALWAYS democratic.

Anarchy and dictatorship in 1890?

Of course you dolt, never more. Anarchists were bombing all over the place in the US, see the Haymarket Bomb and the deaths of Pres Garfield and McKinley- read the "Good Old Days- They Were Terrible!". 16 hour workdays and horrible tenement firetrap, hoboes and tramps, nonstop work for farmers and wives. Absolute monarchies everywhere too...

Reagan and the Pub dupes- thinking 1890 was a paradise...Gilded age for mega rich Pubs ONLY...

 

[GeoLaureate8]

He's not a socialist because he's Fascist. He just uses socialism as a tool.


.
.

 

[francoHFW]

It's tough arguing with dupes who don't know a thing...Hint: Obama is a pragmatic centrist- YOU are brainwashed idiot far RWers...

 

[francoHFW]

and chumps for greedy idiot rich a-holes.

 

[mex]

Couldn't agree more.

you're an idiot.....explain why BO sued Arizona for following Federal Law......and why he ran to the UN as well....if that's not the action of an international socialist i don't know what is....

Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council

Calling someone an idiot and then failing to explain means you have nothing to back up your claims and are just trying to spread more hate just like fascists but carry on.

and you just did the same thing

 

[mex]

I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century.

Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a proud, decorated veteran?

I've always found that real veterans don't need to trumpet to people they never met.

Just sayin'.

I thank you for your service nevertheless. Being a veteran doesn't make you RIGHT.

 

[mex]

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

funny... all the world's sweatshops are in mexico, china, and all the other filthy polluted socialist utopiae.

if you are working in a sweatshop, you have the freedom to find another job.

 

[mex]

Communist socialism in theory, perhaps, but hardly ever in practice. there are different flavors of socialism, typical an extremist such as yourself can only talk in absolute terms and extreme concepts.

We may talk in absolutes sometimes because that's where the yellow brick road of socialism ultimately goes.

The socialism you may be talking about is the one currently in America.

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

Let's revisit this BRILLIANT post when austerity measures across europe fail, and all those 'civilized' socialist nation states start killing one another for a few morsels of food, which their economies can no longer produce.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not even going to mention all the "conspiracies" linking him to Marxists in his early life or his solidarity with other Socialist dictators around the world.

But how is someone who preaches redistribution and wants to further Socialize our country not a Socialist?

Obviously, the hard-core Marxists don't welcome his as one of their own. But it's not as if he can do whatever he wants like it's all hunky-dory.

"Just because he sleeps wit other men doesn't mean he's gay."

How much socialism do you have to support in order to be classified a socialist?

If you think it's the job of government to answer this question, then you are a socialist.

If you don't think we should get rid of public schools, then you're a socialist.

 

[mex]

.

Can someone explain how a guy who wants a 39.6% top marginal tax rate, and who signed a massive bill that is essentially a colossal gift to private insurance companies, is a socialist?

Maybe we should all agree on what "socialism" is before we throw that word around as easily as the Left throws around the term "racist".

.

good post

 

[mex]

16 hour workdays and horrible tenement firetrap, hoboes and tramps, nonstop work for farmers and wives. Absolute monarchies everywhere too....

sounds a lot like how whining union thugs describe the workplace in 2012.

ave 70K per year for a striking wisc teacher for 9 months of work... every holiday off... every weekend off... full benefits... full retirement in just 20 years....

poor poor mistreated babies... I mean... how can they survive workplace abuse like that???

something's gotta be done I tell ya

 

[Liberal]

Lol, I leave for a bit and come back a pile... Like this thread.

If you think Obama is a socialist, you do not know what socialism is.. Believe me, as an avid fan of socialism.. We have NOTHING like it here, and there are few people in DC that are, O is not one of them.

Same goes for those calling him a "dictator", you know who you are (KATZ)..

 

[francoHFW]

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

funny... all the world's sweatshops are in mexico, china, and all the other filthy polluted socialist utopiae.

if you are working in a sweatshop, you have the freedom to find another job.

None of the above are socialist. China is communist, all are poor.

We should compare ourselves with other modern countries, see sig pp1. They are all socialist- When we passed O-care, the PM of Finland said "we're all socialists now!". It's a synonym for intelligent and fair....