• 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!

Is Obama Still a "Socialist"?

Is Obama still a "socialist"?

  • Total voters
    51
Burlington, VT might disagree with the idea that Sanders is a socialist, where he was mayor..
Helix said:
he never was one. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a real socialist in the legislative or executive branches.
Click to expand...

As for today, Sanders is in the hip pocket of French-Canadian wind-energy corporatists, who have put wind farms on the northern VT Green Mountain ridges .
 
NIMBY said:
Burlington, VT might disagree with the idea that Sanders is a socialist, where he was mayor..


As for today, Sanders is in the hip pocket of French-Canadian wind-energy corporatists, who have put wind farms on the northern VT Green Mountain ridges .
Click to expand...

Just like the German Social-Democrats or other social-democrats and socialists in Europe are in the hip pockets of "green energy" corporatists. That's what socialists do. They are not Soviet-style Communists (who considered socialists a petit bourgeois enemy): they seek to engage and control (and corrupt, I would add) private sector, not to push it away or ruin it. Limited nationalizations were in vogue in the 1950s-1970s (just like we had and still have the government-run Tennessee Valley Authority), but by now very few socialist parties of significance advocate such measures.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
:0) In other words, there is no limit to how far you're willing to stretch 'socialism' and 'capitalism.'
Click to expand...

I think the source of disagreement is that you view "socialism" as some destination point, and only politicians who qualify as socialists are those that demand thing to be as they supposed be there, all or nothing. We call a politician socialist if his actions are consistenly directed along the socialist vector; more socialism, not less, in our mixed economy.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Soo the Dow hit a record high of 16,000 under this terrible "anti business, socialist" Obama.. Is he still a "socialist"? :lol:
Click to expand...



He never was. If he was, we'd have single payer health care, just to start.

Sigh.
 
Cyrylek said:
I think the source of disagreement is that you view "socialism" as some destination point, and only politicians who qualify as socialists are those that demand thing to be as they supposed be there, all or nothing. We call a politician socialist if his actions are consistenly directed along the socialist vector; more socialism, not less, in our mixed economy.
Click to expand...

I call them socialist if they support redistribution of wealth and govt control of the economy. In which case, most of america is socialist. Its not just Obama. Rank and file americans generally support progressive taxation, welfare, and govt steering the economy. Thats socialism, even if its not pure socialism. They WANT govt to own schools, hospitals, power plants, which is public ownership of production. They WANT govt to take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

I do not, therefore I am clearly not socialist. Obama does, democrats do, most Republicans do, most americans do. I still have yet to see a democrat, a liberal, explain why they dont want to be called socialist. Its always "we arent socialists", yet they never try to explain why socialism is a bad thing.
 
paddymcdougall said:
He never was. If he was, we'd have single payer health care, just to start.

Sigh.
Click to expand...

Obama doesnt have dictatorial powers, not for lack of trying. He cant just will stuff into existence.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care plan" - Obama

"By the way, Canada did not start immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step. " - Obama
 
Cyrylek said:
I think I do know both Wall Street and socialists in politics quite enough. I told you why they are quite compatible. Often the same people: Jon "I simply don't know where the money is" Corzine was the ultimate Wall Street insider, then Senator, then Governor of New Jersey.

You just answer with "Are you sure?".
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase this .. Wall Street wanted an actual socialist as POTUS and wanted that so badly that they contributed more money to him than anyone in history?

.. and if the major beneficiary of the policies of that 'socialist' benefited Wall Street more than actual people .. how was that person ever considered to be a socialist in the first place?

I'm a socialist .. Obama is not and never has been.

Socialists aren't warmongers for the MIC.

If Obama was a socialist, Medicare for All would be the law of the land, nor Romneycare.
 
Cyrylek said:
I think the source of disagreement is that you view "socialism" as some destination point, and only politicians who qualify as socialists are those that demand thing to be as they supposed be there, all or nothing. We call a politician socialist if his actions are consistenly directed along the socialist vector; more socialism, not less, in our mixed economy.
Click to expand...

The right calls anything 'public' socialism .. but what they call it isn't the point .. nor are convenient political memes.

But no honest definition can Obama be remotely considered to be a socialist .. no matter what the meme says.

The source of disagreement is that partisans stretch words to mean whatever they want it to mean.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Obama doesnt have dictatorial powers, not for lack of trying. He cant just will stuff into existence.

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care plan" - Obama

"By the way, Canada did not start immediately with a single payer system. They had a similar transition step. " - Obama
Click to expand...

That was just the BS to get elected. If Obama was a socialist he would have never proposed a corporatist plan like the ACA/RomneyCare/Heritage Foundation/Obamacare
 
Since the Left bitches about the way the Right uses socialism, I'll put it another way. He is absolutely a collectivist, and hates the way this country achieved its status through rugged individualism; so he aims to change that through a social justice agenda, to correct all his perceived unfairnesses. Those unfairnesses were primarily imposed on minorities by whites, which is why I consider him a political racist. He perceives all things poltical in terms of race.
 
American said:
Since the Left bitches about the way the Right uses socialism, I'll put it another way. He is absolutely a collectivist, and hates the way this country achieved its status through rugged individualism; so he aims to change that through a social justice agenda, to correct all his perceived unfairnesses. Those unfairnesses were primarily imposed on minorities by whites, which is why I consider him a political racist. He perceives all things poltical in terms of race.
Click to expand...

:0) WOW

Obama "perceives all things poltical in terms of race."

The surely you can easily point out all his policies that are directed towards black people .. :0)

Surely if ALL of his perceptions are race-based, you must have pages and pages of his policies that you can point to.
 
NIMBY said:
Burlington, VT might disagree with the idea that Sanders is a socialist, where he was mayor..


As for today, Sanders is in the hip pocket of French-Canadian wind-energy corporatists, who have put wind farms on the northern VT Green Mountain ridges .
Click to expand...

they put one right outside my town. it has been pretty good for us.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
:0) WOW

Obama "perceives all things poltical in terms of race."

The surely you can easily point out all his policies that are directed towards black people .. :0)

Surely if ALL of his perceptions are race-based, you must have pages and pages of his policies that you can point to.
Click to expand...

You think he has pages of policies, as though he's accomplished much?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/us/politics/18text-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.
Click to expand...

This guy spent 20 years listening to a race baiter name Rev Wright (distancing himself only after a beating by the media. He supports amnesty for illegal aliens, and why do you think that is? Probably two reasons, 1) votes, and 2) injustice by the US taking land away from hispanics during the 19th century. Obamacare was designed to force those with (rich whites) to support those without (poor blacks), to put it simply. It never was about reducing healthcare costs, as every analysis has shown. Sure he's very race oriented, in those areas where race can be applied, but he's still a collectivist in all areas whether races related or not. There doesn't seem to be any issue where those who disagree with him aren't in some way labeled racists. I've never seen him speak out against those that use racism as a political tool.

Frankly I'm sick of him, and think he's been a lousy example of the first black President, because of the way he's conducted himself politically. His whole presidency has held an aura of "finally getting his people what they're owed". We are as a nation trying to get over the racial issues of the past, yet he plays it like a piano for political gain. I have no use for him.



I await his speech to speak out against this.
 
Last edited:
BlackAsCoal said:
.. and if the major beneficiary of the policies of that 'socialist' benefited Wall Street more than actual people .. how was that person ever considered to be a socialist in the first place? .
Click to expand...

Policies have results, intended and unintended. I am not a socialist for a number of reasons, and one of them is that I do not believe most socialist policies actually benefit "actual people". Wall Street has benefited, disproportionally, from bailouts, "stimulation", quantitative easing, etc - all socialist policies, by definition: government interfering with the markets.

BlackAsCoal said:
Socialists aren't warmongers for the MIC.
Click to expand...

Why not? Look at the "muscular foreign policy" of the current Socialist French government.

BlackAsCoal said:
If Obama was a socialist, Medicare for All would be the law of the land, nor Romneycare.
Click to expand...

I agree that would be both a socialist and much better (if done right) solution. But is what he has done - or the status quo - any less socialist? Arguably, more: a (reformed, streamlined and rationalized) "Medicare for all" would mean eliminating whole layers of government bureaucracy, unburdening businesses, and boosting the health care markets by putting money into actual consumers' pockets.
 
Helix said:
whether he advocates giving all of the means of production to the workers, i'm not sure.
Click to expand...

Of course not. That's Marxist gibberish. He is a socialist, not a communist.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
The source of disagreement is that partisans stretch words to mean whatever they want it to mean.
Click to expand...

I am not especially partisan. I agree, as I said, that a certain kind of "single payer" would be superior to the status quo, to say nothing about Obamacare, for example.

But you keep avoiding answering my actual questions. Let's try again:

Allowing for semantic fog effects, and all that: Are the militaristic, corporatist etc French Socialists, for example, still "real socialists" or impostors?

Or, when Jon Corzine (D-Wall Street) was pushing for universal health care, universal gun registration and state-funded college education - these policies were somehow not socialist, just because the politician was a member of the country's "financial elite"?
 
Helix said:
this is the definition i was going by :
Click to expand...

That's a Marxist definition that makes no practical sense. "Co-operative management" suggests voluntary, free-market relationships, while "social ownership" is meaningless unless it is a mask for the coercive State owning everything and everyone.

Actual Socialists - be it in Spain or in France, or in Chile, or elsewhere - aim at increased government control over the economy and extension of what they perceive as "safety nets". Sometimes these plans include limited nationalization (in France in the early 1980s last time), sometimes the opposite: the Spanish Socialists under Gonzalez started to privatize small and medium-size businesses that were run by government under Franco, and went as far as privatizing the giant Empresa Nacional de Electricitad SA. As recently as in 2005 Zapatero's Socialists privatized the big tobacco company Altadis.

The modern-day Socialists want to milk the cow, not ride it to death.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not so great. Continue with trickle down economics, and capitalism thats what we get
34fkwn9.gif


Just saying in this thread that the whole "Obama is a socialist" claim is idiotic, and just wanting to see who still believes that idiotic talking point
Click to expand...

Is there a particular reason you used a graph that stops in 2008? Something happen after that that you don't want us to know about?
 
BlackAsCoal said:
That was just the BS to get elected. If Obama was a socialist he would have never proposed a corporatist plan like the ACA/RomneyCare/Heritage Foundation/Obamacare
Click to expand...

Or rather, getting elected introduced him to reality.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
:0) In other words, there is no limit to how far you're willing to stretch 'socialism' and 'capitalism.'
Click to expand...

Not at all I am using the standard definition. See Below:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

Almost every administration since the early 1900's has been involved in moving our economic system to a less free and more one of more state control. President Obama has been successful in his own stated attempt to "fundamentally transform" the nation. What do you think he meant by that? President Obama (and other past presidents) believes in and supports policies that are socialist in nature.
 
jonny5 said:
Or rather, getting elected introduced him to reality.
Click to expand...
When corporations become largely dependent on federal money and or credits to survive, and at the same time are heavily regulated; this meets the definition of socialism. Think about what it means for banks to be too big to fail, coupled with heavy regulations, and further their profits being supported by the fed. This is a symbiotic and controlled relationship between Government and providers of capital. Straight up socialism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom