Obama...socialist ?

[Davoo]

I think one of the big things that anti-obama people are saying now is the old he's-a-socialist routine. Honestly, it's slowly becoming a lot easier to believe...let alone that it seemed likely to begin with.

But that's not the point right now, the point is, if he WAS a socialist (which I'm not saying he is...or isn't) would you oppose that? Or would you like that?

[AntiangelicAngel]

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/9944 39
Old topic of discussion. Obama isn't a socialist. He's a big spender, and little more. Even Reagan supported welfare. Or claimed he did, anyway.

[Tancrisism]

At 1/26/09 01:38 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/9944 39
Old topic of discussion. Obama isn't a socialist. He's a big spender, and little more. Even Reagan supported welfare. Or claimed he did, anyway.

Notice that the link you linked is in the general forum, not politics forum.

I agree though, he is no more a socialist than any other president in the past. People who say he is a socialist either don't understand what socialism is, don't understand what capitalism is, or don't understand either.

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/26/09 02:23 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Notice that the link you linked is in the general forum, not politics forum.

True enough. Just saying, though.

I agree though, he is no more a socialist than any other president in the past. People who say he is a socialist either don't understand what socialism is, don't understand what capitalism is, or don't understand either.

Like George Bush, who tries to reassure us of our "free market" system as he pumped billions in bailouts into it.

[Davoo]

It's late, my temper is short, so it's really hard for me to not scream right now. But didn't I already say that we are not talking about wheather or not BH is Socialistic!! We are talking about that if, IF he was a radical as some are saying, would you support him in it?

I know I wouldn't

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/26/09 02:35 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

Like George Bush, who tries to reassure us of our "free market" system as he pumped billions in bailouts into it.

http://southernavenger.ccpblogs.com/2008 /10/10/hugo-chavez-welcomes-comrade-bush -to-socialism/

Agreed.

[Der-Lowe]

At 1/26/09 09:31 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: It's a practical impossibility for the President of the United States to be a socialist, in terms of how we define socialism in Europe anyway.

Why do you say so?

[AntiangelicAngel]

At 1/26/09 02:55 AM, Davoo wrote: IF he was a radical as some are saying, would you support him in it?

If he was as radical as some are saying, he wouldn't have got the DFL nomination and it wouldn't be an issue, so it's a stupid-ass question.

At 1/26/09 11:39 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: I don't know any real socialist who answers to big business.

Unless the answer is "fuck off."

[Sajberhippien]

At 1/26/09 02:19 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

At 1/26/09 11:39 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: I don't know any real socialist who answers to big business.

Unless the answer is "fuck off."

Lovely! Pure love! :-)

[Patton3]

I think the biggest reason people argue Obama's a socialist because he wants to spread the wealth around. Which is bad for some reason, even though it's one reason the stock market crashed in 1929. Also, you may want to take a look at how wealth in the U.S. is spread around.

http://answers.google.com/answers/thread view?id=2050

[butters7]

At 1/26/09 01:27 AM, Davoo wrote: I think one of the big things that anti-obama people are saying now is the old he's-a-socialist routine. Honestly, it's slowly becoming a lot easier to believe...let alone that it seemed likely to begin with.

But that's not the point right now, the point is, if he WAS a socialist (which I'm not saying he is...or isn't) would you oppose that? Or would you like that?

Not at all, If I remember right wasnt it Palin who said she took money from the wealthy and distributed it all throughout Alaska?

[froggerfreak]

if it works hes a good pres. if it does'nt its his fualt

win win

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/26/09 04:44 PM, Patton3 wrote: I think the biggest reason people argue Obama's a socialist because he wants to spread the wealth around. Which is bad for some reason, even though it's one reason the stock market crashed in 1929. Also, you may want to take a look at how wealth in the U.S. is spread around.

http://answers.google.com/answers/thread view?id=2050

Forcibly [meaning, backed by a weapon] taking the wealth of one class and giving it to another is immoral in my opinion, weather that one class has MORE of it or not. Certainly if you took money from the poor and gave it to the rich it would SEEM like it is more immoral, and it may be only in the respect that it does more harm to a poor man to take his money than it does a rich man, since a rich man losing half his lively hood is less injured in the sense that he is probably still able to 'survive' But the principle of using force to take other people's wealth, for a supposed 'greater good' is stupid. No objective science tells us that humans are equal in attributes, from the physical to the mental to the behavioural. ]

History has most often portrayed the government as an institution that uses force to take wealth from one and give to another, most often taking from the poor and giving to the rich, since through most of ancient history, the ruling elite have comprised of two classes, the ruling government class, which serves to protect it's inhabitants while at the same time subjecting them to serfdom, this includes kings, nobels, and empires, and the class of mystics, preists, witchdoctors, clerics, and the like which manipulate ignorance and mold it into servitude. Such has been the norm for thousands of years.

Socialism does not seek to abolish this oppressive system, merely to change it so that it works in reverse. That the government class and the mystics class still have the power, but their power derives from draining strength and wealth that was made productively by the industrialist and scientific classes. The state still opperates as a legal theif (Democratic socialism or communism) and the mystics still operate on faith and religion, whether it be baptist or lutheran liberation theology or moral humanism, or a god embodied in the spirit of human collective that justifies such expropriation of the producing classes, the men and women that organize labor to benefit consumers. These mystics include Noam Chompsky, Howard Zinn, Jeremiah Wright, and probably your college professor.

[Patton3]

At 1/26/09 07:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/26/09 04:44 PM, Patton3 wrote: I think the biggest reason people argue Obama's a socialist because he wants to spread the wealth around. Which is bad for some reason, even though it's one reason the stock market crashed in 1929. Also, you may want to take a look at how wealth in the U.S. is spread around.

http://answers.google.com/answers/thread view?id=2050

Forcibly [meaning, backed by a weapon] taking the wealth of one class and giving it to another is immoral in my opinion, weather that one class has MORE of it or not. Certainly if you took money from the poor and gave it to the rich it would SEEM like it is more immoral, and it may be only in the respect that it does more harm to a poor man to take his money than it does a rich man, since a rich man losing half his lively hood is less injured in the sense that he is probably still able to 'survive' But the principle of using force to take other people's wealth, for a supposed 'greater good' is stupid. No objective science tells us that humans are equal in attributes, from the physical to the mental to the behavioural. ]

How exactly is this backed by a weopon?
It's not half his livelihood, not even approaching that in most cases.

History has most often portrayed the government as an institution that uses force to take wealth from one and give to another, most often taking from the poor and giving to the rich, since through most of ancient history, the ruling elite have comprised of two classes, the ruling government class, which serves to protect it's inhabitants while at the same time subjecting them to serfdom, this includes kings, nobels, and empires, and the class of mystics, preists, witchdoctors, clerics, and the like which manipulate ignorance and mold it into servitude. Such has been the norm for thousands of years.

What's the point of this paragraph?
If by giving to the rich you are reffering to the nobles, then that is largely correct for most governments prior to...1800 perhaps(1800: growth of conservatism, liberalsim, nationalism, industrialization, and socialism a little later on.)?
Serfdom was largely a product of Medieval Europe, and to some extent Latin America, so thousands of years is a bit of an overestimate.
Also, "manipulating ignorance" is at least partially true, but I would also add "abuse of power" to the list.

Socialism does not seek to abolish this oppressive system, merely to change it so that it works in reverse. That the government class and the mystics class still have the power, but their power derives from draining strength and wealth that was made productively by the industrialist and scientific classes. The state still opperates as a legal theif (Democratic socialism or communism) and the mystics still operate on faith and religion, whether it be baptist or lutheran liberation theology or moral humanism, or a god embodied in the spirit of human collective that justifies such expropriation of the producing classes, the men and women that organize labor to benefit consumers. These mystics include Noam Chompsky, Howard Zinn, Jeremiah Wright, and probably your college professor.

I think your view of socialism is a bit construed, not entirely, but partially. Try reading this, it should look familiar. http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classi cs/manifesto.html

Also, I'm flattered you think I attend college. I'm actually a sophmore in High School. Granted though, I do take a college course(AP European History).

[TheReno]

My big thing with this is that Obama isnt socialist, but the democrat platform, if relied on, sides on the side of what could be considered socialism. Its not, but neither is Jay Leno's hair all white. Almost, but not. xD And no I dont support him now, so if he was, just more reason not to like.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/26/09 10:58 PM, Sabado-Karate wrote:

Its hard to imagine Obama imitating either,t hough.

There are many forms of Socialism that one can imitate, though most assuredly, Obama is the most socialist president that we've had since FDR.

So far, not in action, but in his speeches and past choices.

Whether or not he becomes increasingly socialist, or just a protectionist democrat remains to be seen

[ViolentChick]

I think a distinction needs to be made. The conservatives who have been in power over the last few decades have made us believe that ANY government spending is communism. That's just not true - and I'm not a communist! This country was built through strong government programs and spending (so was this computer! This internet!). The conservative myth that all private spending is wise and productive and public spending foolish and wasteful is what has gotten us into the economic mess we find ourselves in today. There is nothing socialist about having a government that serves the people - we live in a democracy, not a socialist state. It's the decline in national investments that has led us to a place where from 1989 to 2006, the highest-earning 10 percent of U.S. households collected over 90 percent of the nation's income gains. Today the top 1 percent of American families receives 23 percent of all personal income, up from just 10 percent in 1979. Corporate executives earn 275 times as much as average workers, compared with 27 times in 1973 (these facts again taken from the book Thinking Big, which I highly recommend). If the market and hard work could have saved us - it would have already done so.

[Davoo]

I'm not very sure about that ViolentChick...the governement is starting to use all these bailouts as an excuse to start controling how the big banks and companies use their money. Although the president would just come out and say "We're regulating them, not controlling them." well it certianly hasn't looked like that!

They could just as easily bail out every citizen in the country who's about to go backrupt, and then go around telling US how to spend our money. *COUGH*socialism*COUGH*

I'm not saying they'll do that, but they could. Maybe Obama isn't socialist, but it sure looks like SOMEONE is!

[SmilezRoyale]

At 1/26/09 08:05 PM, Patton3 wrote:

At 1/26/09 07:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 1/26/09 04:44 PM, Patton3 wrote: I think the biggest reason people argue Obama's a socialist because he wants to spread the wealth around. Which is bad for some reason, even though it's one reason the stock market crashed in 1929. Also, you may want to take a look at how wealth in the U.S. is spread around.

http://answers.google.com/answers/thread view?id=2050

Forcibly [meaning, backed by a weapon] taking the wealth of one class and giving it to another is immoral in my opinion, weather that one class has MORE of it or not. Certainly if you took money from the poor and gave it to the rich it would SEEM like it is more immoral, and it may be only in the respect that it does more harm to a poor man to take his money than it does a rich man.

How exactly is this backed by a weapon?

It's not half his livelihood, not even approaching that in most cases.

It's backed by a gun in the sense that the government uses force to collect taxes since it is a mandatory obligation... Tax collectors might not carry guns on themselfs but failiure to pay taxes is a crime. At some point a refusal to comply to conditions you had no say in participating in result in armed men coming to your house.

Use of such force isn't an evil in itself since even justified functions of government require funding, but when it is used for the sake of taking from one and giving to another it becomes unnecessary.

"Half your lively hood." was simply a number to give, i could say the same thing for 40, 30, or even 20 percent taxes... though most taxes in socialist countries are between 30-50% in terms of income taxes, however this excludes the money lost from other forms of taxation and the potential purchasing power lost from high prices that generally occur when governments get involved in a free market. Never the less, i just meant that someone who has more money is generally hurt less than someone who loses the same portion of money...

If by giving to the rich you are reffering to the nobles, then that is largely correct for most governments prior to...1800 perhaps(1800: growth of conservatism, liberalsim, nationalism, industrialization, and socialism a little later on.)?
Serfdom was largely a product of Medieval Europe, and to some extent Latin America, so thousands of years is a bit of an overestimate.

This system existed in ancient egypt, if you study the hierarchy. Much like the divine right of kings, the pharaoh, as were many rulers in the world during this era, considered divine themselfs. Their wealth was funded by exchanging [though often forcing] protection for agricultural surplus.

[ViolentChick]

At 1/27/09 02:47 PM, Davoo wrote: I'm not very sure about that ViolentChick...the governement is starting to use all these bailouts as an excuse to start controling how the big banks and companies use their money. Although the president would just come out and say "We're regulating them, not controlling them." well it certianly hasn't looked like that!

They could just as easily bail out every citizen in the country who's about to go backrupt, and then go around telling US how to spend our money. *COUGH*socialism*COUGH*

I'm not saying they'll do that, but they could. Maybe Obama isn't socialist, but it sure looks like SOMEONE is!

Well, it wasn't during the Obama administration that these bailouts occurred. The great and well-known socialist George W. Bush was the one that decided to give the money to the banks.

I think Obama's stimulus plan is badly needed - esp. the parts that deal with infrastructure. We are losing money due to inefficiency, we haven't gotten to the digital age yet in our government bureaucracies and making the changes will have a HUGE impact on the quality of American life. After reading [url=http://thinkingbigthebook.com/]Thin king Big[/url] which also has a list of suggestions for economic stimulus - the only one I'm really mad that Obama left out is putting emphasis on public transportation.