• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is President Obama a Socialist?

The next timer you hear about socialism remember what you would not have without government owned and run things. You would not have Cops, firefighters, rescue people, or the military. You would not have public parks. You would not have schools or teachers. You would not have a post office. You would not have a minimum wage so you would be paid slave wages. You would not have things like health codes. Forget those roads you drive on. You would not have elections to vote for people you like.

So please continue your uneducated rant about how government should do nothing for you, and keep electing the people who want to do nothing for you but take your tax money for themselves.

Thank you fo ryour response but i am not saying that a Socialist Gov't wont fix and take care of things for people i am saying as in websters dictionary definition that Socialism will control everything, i don't understand why you would think anything else
 
You are hooked on one issue about having rights and you will lose your freedom. Democrats will give you rights at the same time the Socialism that they represnt will take away your freedom. Do you want Freedom yes or no? Why chance it?

:doh

All the freedoms that I've lost lately have been taken by republican presidents.
 
Thank you fo ryour response but i am not saying that a Socialist Gov't wont fix and take care of things for people i am saying as in websters dictionary definition that Socialism will control everything, i don't understand why you would think anything else


Our government, by any measure, is nowhere near being socialist. Besides GM, what "means of production" does the US government own? By my measure, our government has spent more time giving our national resources to private companies and I know of no instance in which it has nationalized a darn thing.
 
From my experience most people I encounter seem to confuse socialism with communism or think that one leads to the other. I don't beleive our current president is a socialist or communist or marxist or whatever other "ist" you wish to label him with. I'm still waiting to see where the proof is that he is a socialist and what freedom you fear to lose? Would you provide some specifics and credible sources?
 
If anything he's a 1950's corportists in the idea that corporations and capitalism should work for society and socially he's a modern day liberal.

Not the boogey man you on the right want him to be.
 
Redistribution of wealth damn sure isn't the "American way" either. Americans are the most charitable people on Earth, we redistribute our own wealth on how WE feel is the best way to redistribute it, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

We redistribute wealth in many ways and for a while now, through taxes, subsidies, and vouchers.
 
I am a social democrat so if anyone knows, it should be me, and I know that Obama is not a socialist.
 
Any controls on the CEO are "socialist" so yes he is......(giggle for the retarded GOP masses)
 
May I ask which freedoms you have lost?

Freedom to file a unfair labor claim
freedom to have healthcare
freedom to have a town with jobs and factorys in it.
Freedom to form a union
freedom to havea living wage.

And that is jsut for starters........
 
May I ask which freedoms you have lost?

Freedom against unreasonable search and seizure.
Freedom to have a phone conversation without it being monitored and recorded
Freedom to fly on an airplane without being molested
Freedom to protest outside of a "free speech zone"
Freedom from being tortured by my own government.

And so on.
 
Freedom to file a unfair labor claim
freedom to have healthcare
freedom to have a town with jobs and factorys in it.
Freedom to form a union
freedom to havea living wage.

And that is jsut for starters........

labor claims are filed every day
healthcare is available to everyone in the USA, no one is denied medical care
want jobs, elect Romney
Unions are not illegal
supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else, "living wage" is a meaningless term
 
Freedom against unreasonable search and seizure.
Freedom to have a phone conversation without it being monitored and recorded
Freedom to fly on an airplane without being molested
Freedom to protest outside of a "free speech zone"
Freedom from being tortured by my own government.

And so on.

you have that
no one is recording your calls to your girlfriend, grow up
TSA is out of hand, we agree on that one
Like OWS did? using public areas for toilets and drug parlors?
no american citizen has been tortured, geez man what is wrong with you?
 
I am a social democrat so if anyone knows, it should be me, and I know that Obama is not a socialist.

I don't think he is a pure socialist either, more of a marxist collectivist. But his incompetence trumps his ideology.
 
Redistribution of wealth damn sure isn't the "American way" either. Americans are the most charitable people on Earth, we redistribute our own wealth on how WE feel is the best way to redistribute it, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

What is different about Obama and the left, is they feel they can FORCE redistribution. That's what makes his ideology dangerous. Conservatives don't hate the poor! We don't want to starve anyone. We don't want to let granny die. We don't want to push any old lady off a cliff. GET REAL!!!!

Take another example: I don't want my family to go hungry, but I wouldn't rob and kill my neighbor just to get their food. It's about the WAY in which wealth gets redistributed. I would gladly accept a gift from my neighbor, but I wouldn't "take" it from him. The left's ideology is one of force. They "take" more money forcefully, and then redistribute it.

If you think that's true American values, then go have your head examined. I pray that liberals have a rock fall on their head, so it will cause them to start thinking rationally. I mean, it's beyond absurd. They truly buy into the rhetoric that Conservatives, WHO GIVE MORE TO CHARITY TO HELP THE POOR THAN ANYONE, really wan't to see the poor starve to death. They really buy into Obama's speech about Conservatives WANTING dirtier water and air. They really believe that Conservatives hate old people and just want to kill them by pushing them off cliffs in a wheelchair. Come on. Where are the liberals who claim to be "smart"??? Intelligence isn't the issue. It's honesty. Are there any honest liberals left????

Some of my wealth is redistributed to people who build highways in your state. Some of my wealth is redistributed to police officers and firefighters and military personnel.

Stop acting like this is some sort of fundamental concept that conservatives disagree with. You don't object to redistribution of wealth, you object to a 3% increase on the top marginal income tax bracket to provide funding for specific things. And you speak of honesty.
 
Some of my wealth is redistributed to people who build highways in your state. Some of my wealth is redistributed to police officers and firefighters and military personnel.

Stop acting like this is some sort of fundamental concept that conservatives disagree with. You don't object to redistribution of wealth, you object to a 3% increase on the top marginal income tax bracket to provide funding for specific things. And you speak of honesty.

The point is that adding 3% tax to the high earners will not fix the problem, it will pay the govt's bills for 8 days. That is not the answer.

Paying taxes to pay for police and fire protection is a state or local function. Obama style redistribution of wealth means taking money from one guy and giving it to another via the federal tax and welfare system---oh, and consuming 30% of it in the govt beaurocracy that administers the redistribution. you don't know what you are asking for. your envy and jealousy of successful people is contaminating your thought processes.
 
The point is that adding 3% tax to the high earners will not fix the problem, it will pay the govt's bills for 8 days. That is not the answer.

Paying taxes to pay for police and fire protection is a state or local function. Obama style redistribution of wealth means taking money from one guy and giving it to another via the federal tax and welfare system---oh, and consuming 30% of it in the govt beaurocracy that administers the redistribution. you don't know what you are asking for. your envy and jealousy of successful people is contaminating your thought processes.

Kinda like you just hate the poor and minorities and women....

Hannity doesn't know what liberals think. Stop using his version of reality.

These safety nets existed before Obama. Which ones do you want to eliminate?
 
I don't think he is a pure socialist either, more of a marxist collectivist. But his incompetence trumps his ideology.

Sorry, but being a marxist is like being a socialist on speed, a socialist times 10. If he isn't a socialist, he isn't a marxist either.

Universal health care is a principle of many parties on both sides of the political spectrum.
 
labor claims are filed every day
healthcare is available to everyone in the USA, no one is denied medical care
want jobs, elect Romney
Unions are not illegal
supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else, "living wage" is a meaningless term

Lol. Yes, Romney will cut taxes for the wealthy, which always creates jobs. Just like the bush tax cuts did.
 
Some of my wealth is redistributed to people who build highways in your state. Some of my wealth is redistributed to police officers and firefighters and military personnel.

Stop acting like this is some sort of fundamental concept that conservatives disagree with. You don't object to redistribution of wealth, you object to a 3% increase on the top marginal income tax bracket to provide funding for specific things. And you speak of honesty.

I'll be honest. I don't necessarily oppose a 3% increase in the top marginal bracket. What I disagree with is the application of the additional revenue. If it's going to be used to fund failing companies like Solyndra, or simply just spent on more entitlement programs, or to pay for Obamacare, then yes, I oppose it.

What the left wont venture into contemplating, is the adverse effects of Obamacare, particularly on small employers. Are there good parts of Obamacare? Sure. The good parts can be limited down to about 10 pages. So what's in the other 2990 pages? I can tell you that a lot of it is tax increases, and how in order for Obamacare to work, the government must collect 10 years of taxes, just to fund 6 years of benefits. I can also tell you that a lot of it is onus regulations on employers of 50 or more employees. And I can also tell you, that if it weren't for Republican opposition, Obamacare would have eliminated CAFETERIA PLANS for private employers. Know what those are? You know, Section 125 Plans? It would have eliminated an employee's ability to funnel insurance premiums through a pre-tax cafeteria plan. Think about the consequence of millions of Americans having to pay taxes on health insurance premiums that are deducted from their paychecks....

So, you can spout off all you like about being "honest". I'll be perfectly honest with you. I don't mind seeing the rich pay a higher rate. What I mind is the liberal notion that raising taxes on less than 5% of Americans will solve our nation's problems. Obama wants the rich to pay for more stuff, while he refuses to reduce his own deficits, even after he promised he would cut the deficit in half in his first term! How is it going to help our economy if the rich are paying more, while the government continues to simply spend more?

Gee whiz liberals, when is thinking rationally going to become popular again????
 
Kinda like you just hate the poor and minorities and women....

Hannity doesn't know what liberals think. Stop using his version of reality.

These safety nets existed before Obama. Which ones do you want to eliminate?

Who said anything whatsoever about "eliminating" anything? Reform doesn't equate to elimination. So stop being dishonest.

Liberals don't want to reform or cut ANYTHING! Proof is in Obama's budget deficits. The deficits he promised to cut IN HALF in his first term......
 
Lol. Yes, Romney will cut taxes for the wealthy, which always creates jobs. Just like the bush tax cuts did.

Obama has been in office for 4 years, and his best month for job creation came in January of this year. In that month, a total of 275,000 jobs were created that month. Since then, it's been downhill all the way. People forget that Bush also inherited a recession. Obama has been bragging about creating 4 million new jobs in the past 27 months. But if you look at the 27 months following the recession Bush inherited, Bush's numbers are far better. What did Bush do following that recession he inherited? He cut taxes across the board, and unemployment decreased all the way back to 4%. Obama's measures haven't moved the needle at all on unemployment. In fact, when he took office, unemployment was 7.8%. It's 8.1% today, and real unemployment is over 11%.

So, if you wanna compare stats on Bush and Obama, compare apples to apples. Compare the 27 months following each recession. Bush outperformed Obama by a wide margin on job creation. In fact, a story came out this week about how Obama is going to end up with the worst job creation record of any President since WW2. That includes Jimmy Carter's presidency.....

Pretty bad if you ask me......
 
labor claims are filed every day
healthcare is available to everyone in the USA, no one is denied medical care
want jobs, elect Romney
Unions are not illegal
supply and demand should set the price of labor just like everything else, "living wage" is a meaningless term


1: filed to a NLRB that was filled with CEO's

2: 26,000 dies last year because of no HC in USA.

3: Romney destroyed USA jobs, 100,000 of them (or so)

4: yes they are. Forming one is im[posible becasue of new GOP rules. Endless recounts, intimidation, illegal union leader firings, etc etc .

5: CEO pay is not supply and demand, so why should my pay.......LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom