Barack Obama

[randolph]

From the LA Examiner, Brian Ashamakus

Is anyone else tired of the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric coming from the far right. I sure am and I would like to take this opportunity to define socialism and then to demonstrate why Obama is not a subscriber to this economic theory.

Socialism does not describe a single economic system, however there are certain principles that are common to all forms of socialism. 1. The abolition of private property and the implementation of some form of collective ownership. In other words, the people, or their representatives (a government, party, union, guild, etc.) control land, property, and capital as a group instead of it being controlled privately by individuals and companies as in capitalism. 2. The elimination of social and economic classes. Under socialism there is no rich and poor and equality in wealth and power. 3. Production according to ability and distribution according to need. Thus in a socialist society, all produce goods and provide services according to their talents and skills and receive whatever goods and services they need from other producers. Historically, this distribution method has been accomplished through a government bureaucracy, but state control is not a necessary quality of socialism. In other words socialists seek to eliminate the capitalist (supply and demand) form of distribution.

In order to defend my thesis that Obama is not a socialist, I will look at three of his policies as president that have most often resulted in the misuse of that label--the bailout of the auto companies, the economic stimulus, and his current health care proposal. First, the auto bailout. A socialist, as mentioned above, opposes private ownership and would want automobile manufacture to be controlled collectively and for automobiles to be distributed according to need. The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.

The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.

President Obama's health care plan is possibly the policy that most often results in Obama being accused of being a socialist. However, it is also the policy that best demonstrates that he is not. Obama's health care plan has many stipulations, but the primary one is the creation of a public option for health care through which insurance is purchased as a group for a lower premium. This would, however, only be an option. Persons would not be required to drop their existing insurance, nor would private insurance companies be eliminated. The plan also includes several reforms that are meant to reduce health care costs, including subsidies for employers, record-keeping improvements, and regulations of prescription drug companies. These reforms are made without nationalizing any private entities. It even seeks to help small business, by assisting them in paying for their employee health benefits. It doesn't even distribute health care according to need, as persons are still required to pay for the public option. It is therefore quite clear that this bill is not a "socialist" bill, nor is President Obama a socialist.

President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at. So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received.

[randolph]

Interesting comparison of Glenn Becks logo.

[The Conquistador]

What does Glenn Beck have to do with any of this?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

What does Glenn Beck have to do with any of this?

From Washington Monthly.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... "The good news is, nearly four-dozen advertisers have now pulled their sponsorship of Glenn Beck's deranged Fox News program. The bad news is, Beck's ratings have gone up, in part because he's acting like an even bigger lunatic than usual, and clowns doing funny dances tend to draw a crowd.

Yesterday was especially astounding. He argued on the air, for example, that President Obama intends to create a "civilian national security force," which will be similar to Hitler's SS and Saddam Hussein. Apparently, this has something to do with AmeriCorps, which Beck initially said has a $500 billion budget. (He corrected himself later in the show, though his guest didn't blink when he originally made the claim.)

Towards the end of the show, after scrawling on a variety of boards and pieces of paper, Beck summarized his key observation. On a chalkboard, Beck had written the words, "Obama," "Left Internationalist," "Graft," "ACORN Style Organizations," "Revolution," and "Hidden Agenda." If you circle some of the first letters of these important words, Beck says, it spells "OLIGARH." Beck told his viewers there's only one letter missing. If you're thinking that letter is "c," you're not medicated enough to understand Beck's show.

The missing letter is "y," because the word he hoped to spell is "OLIGARHY." No, that word doesn't exist in the English language, but that's probably because the dictionary was written by some communist community organizer who wants to keep Glenn Beck and his viewers down. "

He is a total nut case that the far right loves. Naturally he is on Fox news.

[The Conquistador]

Okaaaay.... I still fail to see why you brought up Glenn Beck and his obvious inability to spell the word "oligarchy".

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Okaaaay.... I still fail to see why you brought up Glenn Beck and his obvious inability to spell the word "oligarchy".

Glenn Beck and other far right wing pundits are trying to cast Obama as a socialist or even worse a communist. They are inflaming their followers into mindless protests that could escalate into violence. Everybody is insecure in this economic environment. To play on fears and worries is demagoguery.
There is plenty of room to discuss and debate Obama's proposals in a civilized manner.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

trying to cast Obama as a socialist or even worse a communist.

Sometimes the truth hurts. It seems that only when left wingers protest, it is "patriotic dissent". Anything else is considered "militant extremism".

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

To play on fears and worries is demagoguery.

How is that any different than global warming, "gun control" and numerous other crap that liberals spew?

[The Conquistador]

Lets see what John Stossel has to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg&

[The Conquistador]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...I1OTdmNTc5YTM=


Listening to a Liar
Ignore the lofty rhetoric: Obamacare is about the government accumulating power.

By Thomas Sowell

The most important thing about what anyone says is not the words themselves but the credibility of the person saying them.

The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of Pres. Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical-care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.

One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's health care before the August recess - for a program that would not take effect until 2013.

Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the legislation were to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone for years the date when the legislation would go into effect - specifically, until the year after the next presidential election?

If this is such an desperately needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation go into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the president is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.

Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days - after which it sat on the president's desk for three days while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.

What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money - and the power that goes with it - into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about.

The worst thing that could happen - from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy - would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before - and to do them before the public realizes what is happening.

The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late.

What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing - and how he has been doing it.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.

The government should not be in the business of helping out businesses.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx
No, a purely capitalist system would allow a failing company or financial institution to fail. That's what bankruptcy is for. A socialist system would make them part of the government.

By accepting bailout money, the "Man" can assume de facto control by saying"We wanna make sure that this money is spent right, so we'll determine how things are spent and/or run."

Originally Posted by randolph

The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.

The quote,"death by a thousand cuts" is relevant here. Once again, a push by the gov't to gain control of private sector enterprises. Just because they don't try to take control by more forceful means does not mean that they are not trying to take over. Rather than trying to control everything in a Soviet-esque manner, they know that they can achieve the same goals in a more subtle manner. People don't respond kindly to outright attacks, so they've changed tactics and found that you can get people to vote for this shit in times of uncertainty under the guise of "financial stability/security","hope and change" or what ever catchphrase they are using.

Originally Posted by randolph

President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at.

There is a world outside of Berkeley you know.

Originally Posted by randolph

So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received.

I am, yet it seems that if I don't believe in a particular political solution or I'm not fellating Obama like everyone else, I am automatically labeled as a back-asswards, racist/misogynist/bigoted redneck who has a heart of stone and clings bitterly to guns and religion.

[TracyCoxx]

I don't know if the democrats here have been following Obama's favorite community organizer group, ACORN lately, since left-wing news isn't covering it, but it's been hilarious.

Last friday, video was released showing a couple of reporters claiming to be a pimp and his ho. They went to ACORN asking how to set up a prostitution ring involving more than a dozen underage girls from El Salvador. The lady there gave them advice, gained from her community organizing experience, on how to set up a prostitution ring and evade the IRS.

ACORN fired the woman and said this was an isolated incident. BTW, that is the extent of the story if you search CNN's archives.

Then the next day the reporters released another video from another state showing the same thing. ACORN fired that person too and threatened legal action against these two reporters. For what? Do they really think they can defend this? The census bureau broke of ties with ACORN.

Monday another video came out, showing the same thing in yet another state. The senate voted 83-7 to revoke federal funds from ACORN. Which is HUGE since ACORN was scheduled to receive over $8 billion in federal funds (Why they were going to receive these funds after being charged in 14 states with voter fraud is beyond me, but I digress...).

The videos continue... today, video from yet another state shows an ACORN worker who says she ran a prostitution ring herself... oh and by the way... she also admitted to KILLING her husband too. OMG.

The head of ACORN issued a statement praising all the good things ACORN has done, like getting the Community Reinvestment Act passed LOL. Yeah, thanks for that. Thanks for getting the CRA passed so the government is required by law to give loans to unqualified applicants which led to the collapse of Freddie Mac & Fannie May and the financial meltdown last fall.

[The Conquistador]

Heads on pikes!!!