Obama: Socialist or not?

[KempoGuy06]

Ive been reading a lot of article that dont point to him being a socialist out right but definitely shows that his plans and ideas and a socialist aura to them.

I dont really care what those people think though most writers are biased.

what do you good people of MT think? Yes or No? Why or Why Not?

B

 

[elder999]

Ive been reading a lot of article that dont point to him being a socialist out right but definitely shows that his plans and ideas and a socialist aura to them.

I dont really care what those people think though most writers are biased.

what do you good people of MT think? Yes or No? Why or Why Not?

B

No more socialist than Teddy Roosevelt or John McCain-based on his and their public statements about "redistribution of wealth," anyway.....:lol:

For example, what famous Socialist said this:

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

and which one said this:

The very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. […]

So, look, here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. … And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they’re the ones that I would support tax cuts for first.

 

[arnisador]

Socialism? No. It's just another hammer they're using to hit him with--one step short of "communist".

 

[celtic_crippler]

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: Capitalism]

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communist are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.


So...what do you think? Looks like our government has already been heading this way without any help from B.O.

 

[theletch1]

"The New Deal" was the first big step toward socialism in this country and that was a long time before B.O. was born. The original question, though, was is he a socialist, not is he a socialist too. His stated objective of "spreading the wealth around" certainly sound socialist. Does it make him less of a socialist if the country has already been heading that way for awhile? The real question should be "How many Americans have decided it's time for a socialist government in this country?" We have a few members here who've stated that they have a socialist view point. We have a socialist party in this country as well.

 

[Twin Fist]

it is pretty clear that Obama is a socialist/marxist

government entitlements paid for by excessive taxation of the rich

not much doubt left when he says it himself "we are gonna spread the wealth around"

those are his OWN words.

 

[celtic_crippler]

it is pretty clear that Obama is a socialist/marxist

government entitlements paid for by excessive taxation of the rich

not much doubt left when he says it himself "we are gonna spread the wealth around"

those are his OWN words.

"The" wealth....what about "his" wealth?

 

[elder999]

"The" wealth....what about "his" wealth?

Well, he pays "his" taxes.....you can see full financial disclosure, here.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Socialist
1: one who advocates or practices socialism
2: capitalized : a member of a party or political group advocating socialism

 

[celtic_crippler]

Well, he pays "his" taxes.....you can see full financial disclosure, here.

Groovy, that link works better than the other one.

...interesting though....unless I missed it....it states that in 2007 his "income" was $4,094,690 but I couldn't seem to find how much he paid in to income tax out of that amount.

 

[elder999]

So...what do you think? Looks like our government has already been heading this way without any help from B.O.

Even since that prototypical Republican Teddy Roosevelt said :

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community. … The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and … a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate.

And, of course, back in 2000, McCain said:

The very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. […]

So, look, here’s what I really believe, that when you are — reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. … And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they’re the ones that I would support tax cuts for first.

I'll say it again-"sharing the wealth," through progressive taxation (i.e., the more you make, the more you pay) is not socialism.

I'm in favor of a flat tax-whatever percentage it came out to, I'd still pay more than someone making less than I do, so it would still be a progressive tax. Of course, I'm really in favor of not paying any taxes at all, but that isn't feasible.

And, just as a matter of fact, the current administration's bailouts of corporate entities constitute socialism far more than a progressive tax, as do their plans to nationalize banking and mortgages.

Of course, it's different when they do it.....

 

[celtic_crippler]

I'll say it again-"sharing the wealth," through progressive taxation (i.e., the more you make, the more you pay) is not socialism.

I'm in favor of a flat tax-whatever percentage it came out to, I'd still pay more than someone making less than I do, so it would still be a progressive tax. Of course, I'm really in favor of not paying any taxes at all, but that isn't feasible.

And, just as a matter of fact, the current administration's bailouts of corporate entities constitute socialism far more than a progressive tax, as do their plans to nationalize banking and mortgages.

Of course, it's different when they do it.....

Agree with most of that....

A flat tax would at least be more constitutional than the current set up. As I stated earlier in another thread, 30% to a millionaire does not have the same impact as does 30% to somebody making less than 30K a year.

I was completely against the bailout....see signature below. Just because I'm busting B.O.'s chops doesn't mean I support the Republican Party. I hate them all equally. LOL

 

[CoryKS]

The real question should be "How many Americans have decided it's time for a socialist government in this country?"

I'm afraid this is it, right here. It's very disappointing just how many Americans have embraced the collectivist ideology. I'm getting a serious "I Am Legend" vibe in the run-up to this year's election.

 

[elder999]

Groovy, that link works better than the other one.

...interesting though....unless I missed it....it states that in 2007 his "income" was $4,094,690 but I couldn't seem to find how much he paid in to income tax out of that amount.

That link is only to his Senate financial disclosure form-the one that says what he made and where he made it.

He did release his tax returns, inculding 2007, as part of his Presidential candidacy, and you can find a copy of his 2007 return here

 

[shesulsa]

There so much finger-pointing from both sides towards both sides you'd think this was a Kenpo Poke drill.

The very system of taxation is a socialist element in this republic. Any number of actions taken by both parties in this country could be deemed socialistic. The reassignment of lands - from protected enviroments to oil fields, the very foundation of taxation itself ......

Oh forget it. It's pointless.

 

[KempoGuy06]

I say we do as Lewis Black says and vote Santa Claus as president or re-elect a dead president. I believe that either one of those choices is better than the crap we have to pick from right now

B

 

[arnisador]

it is pretty clear that Obama is a socialist/marxist

government entitlements paid for by excessive taxation of the rich

Right now, government entitlements paid for by taxation of the rich (who pay the vast majority of the personal income tax). At what point of excessiveness does it become socialism and/or Marxism?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The man is a member of the Socialist "New Party".
Says it all.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The socialism charge is ridiculous. Anyone with half a mind to believe that charge is operating with exactly the right equipment.

Google the transcripts of the speeches that McCain and Palin made at the Republican National Convention. Now cut and paste said speeches to any word processing program. Use the "find" function to scan for the words "socialism" or "socialist."

The words weren't used once.

Look for "wealth" and you'll find it in McCain's speech in the context of "oil wealth." You won't find "wealth redistribution" in either speech.

Do you honestly think that if this was an issue and relevant charge that these two and their handlers would have MISSED it during these key speeches? It was the one moment they had the focus of the nation. Do you think them so incompetent that they wouldn't have brought up the issue of socialism?

This week Stephen Colbert interviewed the Socialist Party presidential candidate, Brian Moore. Moore said, with some pique, that Obama was a capitalist.

The "S" word is a last feeble attemp--of many feeble attempts--to get something to stick to Obama. For those here who are inclined to believe it, add it to your litany of spurious transgressions on his part.

He is now a socialist millionaire. He is now a radical Christian muslim. He is now buddies with a domestic terrorist, and yet somehow has garnished the support of a large number of the Republican aristocracy.

There is a point where the Obama bashers here and elsewhere will come off as silly and pathetic. By all means, you have reached it.


Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

Right now, government entitlements paid for by taxation of the rich (who pay the vast majority of the personal income tax). At what point of excessiveness does it become socialism and/or Marxism?

I believe - first of all - that many people confuse communism and socialism. Socialism is liberal but socialism by definition cannot be had here under the current financial structure in place - it does not coexist in its pure form with capitalism.

Marx believed that the class struggle was to blame for most economic and socioeconomic struggles. It has been argued that "tricke-down economics" is reminiscent of communist theory and out-of-control capitalism wherein no defined classes exist yet the division between haves and have-nots grows and grows ... like we have now.

Some papers I found compared Socialism to Democracy and Communism to Republicanism.

Interestingly, here are some planks of the Communist Manifesto: Let's see who can find which party is touting which (I've bolded a few for consideration):

1. property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,

Socialism can't work with capitalism in their purest senses in that socialism and communism require state-owned and controlled assets, production and redistribution of wealth. Marxist theory and socialism theory have many similarities but they disagree on the source of national socio-economic suffering and apply socialistic theory accordingly.

The great thing about our experiment in a democratic republic is that PARTS of these systems have been working fairly well for us. But the undoing of America, IMNSHO, will be in the distraction of the American people with the use of emotional separatism (us vs. them) and instant gratification and advertising through our currently free market system. Laziness and herd mentality will most likely continue to prevail and communism will take over. This can only be undone if every single American takes it upon themselves to do what it takes - run for council. Refuse to align oneself with any particular company, interest group, etcetera. Make your presence known peaceably and intelligently to your local, state and national leaders. Become a leader. Stop taking cheap shots at other people just because you disagree. We can't afford it anymore and it's nonproductive.

It's a daily living thing, not just a when-I-have-the-time-to thing.