• 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
FederalRepublic said:
Well, that certainly proves that Americans wanted medicare for all. If only the democrats had listened.

I suppose I should have put "healthcare reform" in quotes. Yeah. Lots of people want to do something about the rising costs of health care. Making it more expensive on purpose would rank pretty low on most people's list though, unless you're a socialist. You can't have people choosing market solutions when you have something so awesome that you want to give them, so you have to destroy the market first.
Click to expand...

The simple truth brother is that Obama is a corporatist. Against his own campaign promises he went behind the backroom door and made deals with Big Pharma. He knew he was going to betray the American people on healthcare as the lies were flowing out of his mouth.

The simple solution all along was removing two words from Medicare, 'over 65' .. work out the details, healthcare done.
 
Perotista said:
I think the president has governed center left. He definately believes government is the solution to most problems which I disagree with. But I wouldn't call him a socialist.
The stock market has nothing to do with being a sociallist or not.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...





That is just, like, your opinion ...man.


Which some people will disagree with.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
From my perspective, socialism is not militaristic by its very nature. However, capitalism is .. .
Click to expand...

From my perspective, it is exactly the other way around. "Capital" doesn't care how it gets multiplied; it seeks the highest return on investment, that's all. It can go free-market, or it can go crony-capitalist/socialist, whatever pays better.

But there's no free market for foreign interventions or massive arms sales. Who are the sellers and the buyers? Small businesses? Of course not. Wars are the business of governments.

BlackAsCoal said:
That being said, I agree with your point .. while cringing..
Click to expand...

But you see - you don't have to cringe. You just have to accept the same rather obvious truth I grudgingly (but inevitably) accept, as a libertarian/classical liberal: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, et al - take any libertarian figure within the American political landscape - I have my share of disagreements with all and any of them, but all of them do definitely fit into the broad libertarian political spectrum (as opposed to you socialists or them conservatives).

BlackAsCoal said:
I would indeed call Corzine a socialist and a crony capitalist .. which is the very reason that he was never going to get the financial backing from Wall Street that Obama did .. .
Click to expand...

Get real. He had outspent the eventual winner Chris Christie in 2010 by nearly 3:1 margin. Some of it came from his own pocket (filled how, I should ask?), but certainly not most of it, and it's not like a conservative farmer in Nebraska or a libertarian software engineer in New Hampshire were sending their contributions, or even his twice-removed cousins from all over. The sources were all too predictable:

Jon S. Corzine: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Senator Career | OpenSecrets
 
BlackAsCoal said:
The simple truth brother is that Obama is a corporatist. Against his own campaign promises he went behind the backroom door and made deals with Big Pharma. He knew he was going to betray the American people on healthcare as the lies were flowing out of his mouth.

The simple solution all along was removing two words from Medicare, 'over 65' .. work out the details, healthcare done.
Click to expand...

He had to play ball with private companies to get Communist agenda embedded. Look how he put the screws to the insurance compaies.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
From my perspective, socialism is not militaristic by its very nature. However, capitalism is .. and what we see in France is the mix of the two when it comes to foreign policy. The French will declare its the result of Nazi occupation, but whatever its origin, as a socialist, I'm not comfortable with it.

That being said, I agree with your point .. while cringing.

I would indeed call Corzine a socialist and a crony capitalist .. which is the very reason that he was never going to get the financial backing from Wall Street that Obama did .. which is my point. If you're suggesting that Wall Street would have bathed Corzine in the same money they gave Obama, I suggest that isn't true.

Calling everything on the other side of the fence 'socialist' is nothing new for the right. It's the same worn out story ..

Wall Street soars under Obama’s socialism
excerpt

As we talked about earlier in the year, if President Obama is trying to impose socialism on the U.S. economy, he really isn’t trying very hard.

The real fun begins when we reminisce about what Obama’s Republican critics were saying in early 2009. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal ran an entire editorial in early March 2009 arguing that the weak stock market was a direct result of investors evaluating “Mr. Obama’s agenda and his approach to governance.”

Karl Rove and Lou Dobbs made the same case. So did Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Fred Barnes. For a short while, it was one of Mitt Romney’s favorite talking points, too. Even John Boehner got in on the larger attack.

Just so we’re clear, I still don’t think a strong stock market is necessarily proof of a robust economy. There are far more reliable indicators – job growth and median wages, for example – that tell us far more about the relative strengh of the economy than where major Wall Street indexes close on a given day.

But when it comes to the politics, consistency matters. Conservatives can’t say a falling stock market in early 2009 is proof that Obama’s agenda is a dangerous failure, and then ignore a rising stock market as irrelevant.
Wall Street soars under Obama's socialism | MSNBC

It's soaring because it isn't socialist.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of the Soviet Union?
 
BlackAsCoal said:
The simple truth brother is that Obama is a corporatist. Against his own campaign promises he went behind the backroom door and made deals with Big Pharma. He knew he was going to betray the American people on healthcare as the lies were flowing out of his mouth.

The simple solution all along was removing two words from Medicare, 'over 65' .. work out the details, healthcare done.
Click to expand...

Being a corporatist does not exclude him from being a socialist. Socialists rewards their friends just like every other statist.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
What economic system would you say underlies that type of activity?

If this is the question that you're referring to .. it most certainly would NOT be deemed a socialist economy .. and it is only the imagination that would suggest it would be.

Are you aware that socialist economies make room for cradle-to-grave free healthcare AND education for its citizens?

I'm sure the stretching of 'socialist' plays well among the lost and confused .. but calling Obama a socialist is absolutely laughable.

I'll say again .. partisans will stretch the meaning of everything to meet the meme.
Click to expand...

Still no answer.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
The simple truth brother is that Obama is a corporatist. Against his own campaign promises he went behind the backroom door and made deals with Big Pharma. He knew he was going to betray the American people on healthcare as the lies were flowing out of his mouth.

The simple solution all along was removing two words from Medicare, 'over 65' .. work out the details, healthcare done.
Click to expand...

He was always known as a triangulating centrist and establishment type since his days in chicago. Not sure why everyone got sold on this idea he was some political outsider. Well, besides the fact that he was a black man and assumed that amounted to some inherent political position. But whatever
 
apdst said:
He had to play ball with private companies to get Communist agenda embedded. Look how he put the screws to the insurance compaies.
Click to expand...

lol @ the ACA being "communist"
 
paddymcdougall said:
Seriously? so car insurance is socialist too? requiring kids to go to school is socialist? Making everyone obey the speed limit is socialist?

As some earlier posters pointed out, his opponents are twisting the definition of socialism till its own mother wouldn't recognize it.

And the thing is - who cares what label you throw on it? I could call subsidies of oil companies socialism. Label only matters if you have a knee-jerk reaction to a label and never look at anything else. Do you like the policy or not? That's what is important, not whatever label you put on it. Which in this case I believe you are doing inaccurately; you disagree; but again - call it a "firestormism" ... call it whatever you like. It's what's in it that is important.

Personally, given how screwed up our health insurance system was, I feel the ACA is a step in the right direction, even though I would have preferred single payer. (But that could have led to huge economic disruptions as health insurance companies closed down, so maybe not the best to do right away).

We have higher health costs and worst outcomes - ie lower life expectancy - than other western countries like France and England (Yeah, google it, I'm not bothering posting a link; by now everyone on this site should be well aware of this) (and yes, there are some medical procedures that we do better than them, but overall - more $$$, shorter lives) I personally think highly enough of our country to think we can do better than this - and that we WANT to do better than this. That we don't want people dying because they couldn't afford basic care.

You may disagree with that, of course.
Click to expand...

You may be right that it really doesn't matter what label you put on it... unfortunatly that is what the thread was asking. I posted a definition of socialism earlier, I didn't indicate whether it was a good or a bad thing. under the definition, certain segments of our economic system have become socialist. President Obama supports those changes that create that economic enviroment. so what? just admit it.

To your other points: government intervention in markets always has unintended and usually very expensive consequences. Health care insurance reform is a trojan horse for capturing governmental control over a larger share of the economy, here's why:

No one chooses to get sick. The services required to render care are what they are, no matter the method used to pay for those services. In the old system, people went to get care, didn't pay the bill, the Dr's and hospitals wrote off the loss and the taxpayer shared the expense of the write off. Now the same thing eventually happens, except there are more hands in the pot of taxpayer money. Now instead of Dr. and indigent patient taking from the taxpayer, it is the Dr, the insurer, the government bureaucrat, and the patient dipping into tax payer pockets. You see simple systems are always more efficient. I would solve the health care problem with HSA's for all, subsidizing low income accounts. offering higher deductable plans with lower premiums for those who roll their hsa funds over in healthy years. This incentivises competition and responsible use of health care dollars.
 
you want to call something socialist, call Southwest Airlines socialist. They are employee-owned; that's what socialism is.

ACA isn't socialist.

Pres Obama isn't socialist.

Southwest Airlines is.
 
paddymcdougall said:
you want to call something socialist, call Southwest Airlines socialist. They are employee-owned; that's what socialism is.

ACA isn't socialist.

Pres Obama isn't socialist.

Southwest Airlines is.
Click to expand...

Please. go read a dictionary.
 
paddymcdougall said:
you want to call something socialist, call Southwest Airlines socialist.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll do that from now on. In my private vocabulary, "socialist" will mean "Southwest Airlines". And if 99% of the world's socialists have any issue with that, I will tell them to go pound the sand.

Quote: When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less
 
apdst said:
He had to play ball with private companies to get Communist agenda embedded. Look how he put the screws to the insurance compaies.
Click to expand...

The health insurance industry WROTE IT.

Try again.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Being a corporatist does not exclude him from being a socialist. Socialists rewards their friends just like every other statist.
Click to expand...

Words don't mean whatever you want them to.

A corporatist socialist???
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
He was always known as a triangulating centrist and establishment type since his days in chicago. Not sure why everyone got sold on this idea he was some political outsider. Well, besides the fact that he was a black man and assumed that amounted to some inherent political position. But whatever
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that.
 
johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the point was, even if Obama has socialist plans, once he got elected he found out he couldnt just talk his way into it. The lack of success is not evidence of lack of intent.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
BS to get elected is not really hard to discern. All it takes is to pay attention.

This was just one among Obama's mountain of BS to get elected.
Click to expand...

And then he set off to make it happen, by raising taxes on the rich, increasing social spending on everyone else, and increasing govt control over 1/5th of the economy. Luckily theres still some people in the country who oppose it at every turn and kicked the democrats out of the House.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
... which clearly demonstrates that those who make this claim don't have a clue of what they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Youre free to try and convince us. If you have nothing less but ad hominems, then feel free leave.
 
paddymcdougall said:
you want to call something socialist, call Southwest Airlines socialist. They are employee-owned; that's what socialism is.

ACA isn't socialist.

Pres Obama isn't socialist.

Southwest Airlines is.
Click to expand...

Southwest Airlines doesn't have compulsory association. ACA does.
 
BlackAsCoal said:
Words don't mean whatever you want them to.

A corporatist socialist???
Click to expand...

Apparently your definition of corporatist is exclusive. Do you think that socialists don't have corporate friends to repay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom