News Is Obama a Socialist or a Capitalist?

[Ivan Seeking]

Many here are surely familiar with the claims that Obama is a closet socialist. What is funny about this is that I have a friend who calls himself a true socialist. In fact, formally he is probably a Marxist. He is well-studied in political philosophy.

He can't stand the evil capitalist, Obama. On any given day I may receive emails from freinds [work associates] on the right who hate Obama the socialist, and then emails from a real socialist who hates the capitalist, Obama.

I just take the average of the two sides and keep smiling.

 

[GeorginaS]

Marginally along the lines of irony and socialism and whatnot, I can't wait for the day when the people (predominantly a section of US society) who froth at the mouth about what they call "socialism" wake up, flip a light switch, and when the lights come on in their house, a light goes on in their brain. "Ohhhh," they'll say, "now I get it."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Marginally along the lines of irony and socialism and whatnot, I can't wait for the day when the people (predominantly a section of US society) who froth at the mouth about what they call "socialism" wake up, flip a light switch, and when the lights come on in their house, a light goes on in their brain. "Ohhhh," they'll say, "now I get it."

Last summer when crowds were frothing at the mouth in town hall meetings over health care reform, there was one Democratic Congressman who responded to the socialism claims by asking how many of those making accusations were collecting social security benefits. Given that much of the crowd was near or past retirement age, it got very quiet.

 

[f95toli]

Indeed.
It is quite interesting to note that Sweden (which many people in the US would consider to be "socialist" country, despite the fact that the current government is conservative/liberal) has over the past few years started looking to the US for ideas when it comes to e.g. anti-trust regulations etc.
The reason being that the US has (or at least had, before Bush) one of the most tightly regulated private sectors in the world. The rules in Sweden (not to mention in here in the UK) are actually much less strict.

 

[russ_watters]

Last summer when crowds were frothing at the mouth in town hall meetings over health care reform, there was one Democratic Congressman who responded to the socialism claims by asking how many of those making accusations were collecting social security benefits. Given that much of the crowd was near or past retirement age, it got very quiet.

Sooo...you're saying that Obama isn't a socialist, but those who attend townhall meetings are?

I see irony in trying to play multiple sides of an issue at the same time while creating false absolutes and dichotomies!

All of this is intended to obscure the fact that Obama - socialist or not - is extremely liberal. And by "extremely", I mean he to the left of the vast majority of the US, as judged by his voting record before he started campaigning.

And you being such a huge fan of Obama and huge critic of the right, while claiming to "take the average" is just laughable.

 

[fourier jr]

obama is a closet socialist? his government hasn't introduced any meaningful banking regulations, health care reform & hasn't changed anything about the patriot act, has escalated the war in afghanistan... this is really the government of a closet socialist?

 

[GeorginaS]

Sooo...you're saying that Obama isn't a socialist, but those who attend townhall meetings are?

Not to answer for Ivan, but what I understood from his post was that people who are participating in and benefiting from social programs getting all wound up about "socialism" has a lovely tinge of irony to it. Just like the woman interviewed at the Tea Bag protest who was yelling for the government to stay out of her Medicaid.

All of this is intended to obscure the fact that Obama - socialist or not - is extremely liberal. And by "extremely", I mean he to the left of the vast majority of the US, as judged by his voting record before he started campaigning.

That's a matter of comparatives. Obama is pretty far right of the majority of Canadians. (I know you're not talking about Canadians. I'm just pointing out a comparative.)

One more edit: "liberal" is not a synonym for "socialist"

 

[Borek]

Last year I have seen on TV a clip from US with protesters, and some guy (slightly older than me) stated to the camera something like "we don't want the socialism here, you know in your country what it is like". Obviously he was aware that he is speaking to Polish audience, he was obviously not aware of the fact that he made an idiot of himself, as often happens when people speak about things thay have no idea about.

No matter how hard Obama would try (I am not stating he IS trying) he won't be able to make US "socialist" country without making a pudding from the Constitution first. I doubt that is going to happen.

 

[Hurkyl]

Many here are surely familiar with the claims that Obama is a closet socialist. What is funny about this is that I have a friend who calls himself a true socialist. In fact, formally he is probably a Marxist. He is well-studied in political philosophy.

He can't stand the evil capitalist, Obama. On any given day I may receive emails from freinds [work associates] on the right who hate Obama the socialist, and then emails from a real socialist who hates the capitalist, Obama.

I just take the average of the two sides and keep smiling.

So... Obama is not a socialist because there exists someone more socialist?

I have no real idea either way, but I do know this is isn't a good argument.

 

[lisab]

Not to answer for Ivan, but what I understood from his post was that people who are participating in and benefiting from social programs getting all wound up about "socialism" has a lovely tinge of irony to it. Just like the woman interviewed at the Tea Bag protest who was yelling for the government to stay out of her Medicaid.




That's a matter of comparatives. Obama is pretty far right of the majority of Canadians. (I know you're not talking about Canadians. I'm just pointing out a comparative.)

One more edit: "liberal" is not a synonym for "socialist"

When Bush was elected (twice, no less!), there were many on the left who talked about moving to Canada. When Obama was elected, a conservative friend of mine talked of leaving the country...which made me practically hit the floor laughing, asking him "Where? Where is there a modern country to the right of the US?"

 

[Hurkyl]

When Bush was elected (twice, no less!), there were many on the left who talked about moving to Canada. When Obama was elected, a conservative friend of mine talked of leaving the country...which made me practically hit the floor laughing, asking him "Where? Where is there a modern country to the right of the US?"

Why does it have to be left vs right? I know what scared me about Obama's election was simply how so many people seemed blindly enthralled.

 

[lisab]

Why does it have to be left vs right? I know what scared me about Obama's election was simply how so many people seemed blindly enthralled.

Actually I was surprised at that, too. I supported him because of his stance on several issues and I thought he would be a steady hand at the tiller...I never got the "rock star" vibe.

After the election, I thought the adulation really went overboard. Yes, I was glad he won, yes I realized he was black...but come on, he's just a man. The Nobel prize was simply over the top, IMO.

That said, I'm still very, very glad he's the President.

 

[noblegas]

So... Obama is not a socialist because there exists someone more socialist?

I have no real idea either way, but I do know this is isn't a good argument.

yes I agree. People in somalia may think that the United states is a socialist country given that they possesses no state. And there are variants of socialism that range from allowing the state to have limited state power to allowing the state to have full state power.

One more edit: "liberal" is not a synonym for "socialist"

it is a bit of a misnomer, at least in the united states, as well as the word 'conservative'.

 

[OmCheeto]

Many here are surely familiar with the claims that Obama is a closet socialist. What is funny about this is that I have a friend who calls himself a true socialist. In fact, formally he is probably a Marxist. He is well-studied in political philosophy.

He can't stand the evil capitalist, Obama. On any given day I may receive emails from friends [work associates] on the right who hate Obama the socialist, and then emails from a real socialist who hates the capitalist, Obama.

I just take the average of the two sides and keep smiling.

I think we should just start calling things what they really are:

Socialist Security
Socialist Healthcare=(medicaid)

Then we could shame all the above socialists into moving to some socialist country, since we are not a socialist country, and they simply don't belong here. This would cut our budget nearly in half, and we could go back to watching Oprah in our spare time, instead of trying to figure out what to call Obama.

Can I see a show of hands for France please. I think I saw that they were the most heavily tax burdened nation in the world a while back. I'm sure they won't notice a few extra people. http://www.forbes.com/global/2009/0413/034-tax-misery-reform-index.html"

After the election, I thought the adulation really went overboard.

Ditto. Walking by a magazine rack at work, I was like;

week 1: "Is he the only person people are allowed to take pictures of?"
week 2: "Ok then, we know what he looks like."
week 3: "Enough already!"
week 4: "Noooooo! The republican's were right! It's Obamania!"

That said, I'm still very, very glad he's the President.

Double ditto.

 

[Borek]

http://www.forbes.com/global/2009/0413/034-tax-misery-reform-index.html"

Judging by numbers for Poland - personal income tax of 32% is the maximum possible, only a small fraction of population pays that much. I have nothing against being in this fraction, but I am with minority at 19%.

 

[turbo]

Obama came into office with extremely high expectations on the part of the progressives, and extremely high negative perceptions and resistance on the part of the neo-con GOP and their surrogates. He has pleased neither extreme.

The truth is that without some cooperation from Congress, he cannot fix ANY problem that requires legislative action, and the GOP in Congress is in lock-step trying to stop any initiatives that he might favor, in order to hand him losses. The GOP pretty much had free rein during W's administration, and they could have reformed banking, monetary policy, health-care, etc, and chose not to do any of that. Now that hard choices have to be made, instead of coming up with new ideas, negotiations, and compromise, they throw tantrums instead of cooperating and crafting legislation.

 

[Hurkyl]

If congress goes along with the president, they don't have any backbone. If congress goes against the president, they're throwing tantrums.

 

[Chi Meson]

I tip my hat to the mentor on my left (Good day Ivan) and to the mentor on my right (How's it going Russ?) and I ask, with utmost respect for the both of you (and this is sincere):

please get this thread out of GD.

Edit:

Whoops! It's out already.

Moot point. Carry on.

 

[Supercritical]

I think it's ironic (and somewhat disturbing) that Obama hasn't followed up on his C-SPAN pledge:



He promised this at least 8 times during the campaign, going so far as to say that closed-door meetings was Clinton's "one really big mistake" in 1993:



I'm not sure how much authority Obama has on rendering Congressional sessions public, but Pelosi apparently has the White House's backing on her decision to wrap things up behind closed doors.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sooo...you're saying that Obama isn't a socialist, but those who attend townhall meetings are?

No, and no. You see, Russ, you are trying to put everyone into little boxes again.

I see irony in trying to play multiple sides of an issue at the same time while creating false absolutes and dichotomies!

You might try figuring out the point first.

All of this is intended to obscure the fact

Ah, now you are judging motive when you don't understand the point.

that Obama - socialist or not - is extremely liberal. And by "extremely", I mean he to the left of the vast majority of the US, as judged by his voting record before he started campaigning.

He has been President for a year, and I see someone who has governed from the middle. The real liberals, including many economists, argued that he must nationalize the banks. He didn't. He has been forced to take drastic action due to the damage done by the Republicans and the ideology of minimum regulation.

And you being such a huge fan of Obama and huge critic of the right, while claiming to "take the average" is just laughable.

Try understanding the point before passing judgment. Little boxes, Russ, little boxes - they don't exist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is my point, Russ?

 

[Nebula815]

The truth is that without some cooperation from Congress, he cannot fix ANY problem that requires legislative action, and the GOP in Congress is in lock-step trying to stop any initiatives that he might favor, in order to hand him losses.

Technically, the Democrats have all the votes they need to do whatever they want. There isn't really anything the GOP could do. The problem was not all those Democrats are to the hard Left.

The other thing is that, for what the GOP could do, it is because they are trying to reform 1/6 of the economy all at once. It isn't like President Obama is trying to fix a small thing here or a small thing there and the GOP keep trying to block him to damage his administration.

The GOP pretty much had free rein during W's administration, and they could have reformed banking, monetary policy, health-care, etc, and chose not to do any of that. Now that hard choices have to be made, instead of coming up with new ideas, negotiations, and compromise, they throw tantrums instead of cooperating and crafting legislation.

They royally blew it on all that during GWB's administration, instead becoming earmark-obsessed, big government Republicans, but they have come up with alternative ideas and compromise.

 

[Nebula815]

He has been President for a year, and I see someone who has governed from the middle. The real liberals, including many economists, argued that he must nationalize the banks. He didn't. He has been forced to take drastic action due to the damage done by the Republicans and the ideology of minimum regulation.

I think you are over-simplifying this issue. Minimum regulation in some quarters might have played a part, as many of the new asset-backed securities were not regulated, and many very smart people couldn't even understand them, but let us also remember that a big problem is simply the SEC has too much information to deal with from all the regulations there are already in existence.

One can regulate until they are blue in the face, but it means nothing if the regulatory agency that must review the information from the regulations is overwhelmed and can't keep up.

Big corporations tend to be pretty risk-averse. Prior to the crises, it was believed by many we had achieved a state of being able to allocate risk very efficiently. So if these big corporations thought they were allocating risk very well, when in fact they were taking on massive risks, but did not realize it, then why would we think under-paid government regulators would have been able to spot the risk?

Also remember that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the big quasi-government institutions, played a huge role in this crises. The Bush administration tried multiple times to bring them under the same regulations and oversight as banks, savings & loan institutions, and credit unions, but the Congress (in particular Democrats) stopped this every time, because Fannie/Freddie for years have been run by Democrats and were large sources of campaign contributions to Democrats.

I believe Barack Obama was among those in Congress who voted against increasing such regulation.

There was also the real-estate bubble itself that played a problem, and among this, California. A real-estate bubble is a hardcore blow to an economy, and California is the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world. How California goes affects the whole nation.

Unfortunately, California also has some of the most restrictive zoning laws, which artificially drove up real-estate prices. So while real-estate prices soared nationwide, they went sky-high in California. Then they crashed, dealing a terrible blow to the California economy.

The big problem is this thus dealt a huge blow to the national economy as a whole too.

So there are lots of problems that contributed to this crises.

 

[mheslep]

... Where is there a modern country to the right of the US?

In the past nobody. In 2010, economically, Hong Kong and Singapore come to mind. Maybe Australia and Ireland as well.

 

[mheslep]

Judging by numbers for Poland - personal income tax of 32% is the maximum possible, only a small fraction of population pays that much. I have nothing against being in this fraction, but I am with minority at 19%.

I see the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Platform" party ran on a 15% flat tax in 2007, won ~41% of the popular vote. Most of Poland's neighbors already have one.

 

[Hurkyl]

What is my point, Russ?

I know you asked Russ but...

I just reviewed your posts -- you never actually stated a point, you just rattled off some snarky anecdotes.

So if you really have any point more sophisticated than that of your typical person who tries to win political debates through snark, then it's your own darned fault it didn't shine through.

 

[OmCheeto]

Sooo...you're saying that Obama isn't a socialist

No

So Obama is a socialist then.

Well that's just great. You realize that 99% of Americans equate the term socialism with fascism don't you. No wonder the white hairs all hate him.

Oh my. I always thought Socialism and Fascism were pretty much opposites. Look what pops up first when I google "famous fascists":

 

[mheslep]

So Obama is a socialist then.

Well that's just great. You realize that 99% of Americans equate the term socialism with fascism don't you. No wonder the white hairs all hate him.

Oh my. I always thought Socialism and Fascism were pretty much opposites.

See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism"

 

[OmCheeto]

See, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialism"

So Obama's a Nazi?

hmmm...

As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, conservatism, communism, democratic socialism and liberalism. It may also oppose certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be undesirable.

They sound like teenagers. They don't like anything except for themselves.

Wait! I get it now. Obama wants national healthcare reform, and medicaid = socialist medical program.

He is a Nazi!



Mother would be so proud of the fact that I voted for him.

America, America, above all others, above all others in the world. From the Yukon to the Mississippi, la la la la la la la!

 

[russ_watters]

Actually I was surprised at that, too. I supported him because of his stance on several issues and I thought he would be a steady hand at the tiller...I never got the "rock star" vibe.

After the election, I thought the adulation really went overboard. Yes, I was glad he won, yes I realized he was black...but come on, he's just a man. The Nobel prize was simply over the top, IMO.

How could you have "never got the 'rock star' vibe" right from the start (the first I - and anyone outside Il - heard of him was the DNC speech in '04)? How does one go from state senator to President in four years if not by wowing crowds with speeches? He became a senator because he gave a great speech at the DNC in '04 and he became President because he made great speeches during the campaign (and by being Not Bush).

 

[russ_watters]

One more edit: "liberal" is not a synonym for "socialist"

I didn't say they were synonomous, but they certainly are on the same side of the spectrum.

 

[russ_watters]

The truth is that without some cooperation from Congress, he cannot fix ANY problem that requires legislative action, and the GOP in Congress is in lock-step trying to stop any initiatives that he might favor, in order to hand him losses. The GOP pretty much had free rein during W's administration, and they could have reformed banking, monetary policy, health-care, etc, and chose not to do any of that.

Obama has a filibuster-proof majority (for another year, anyway) and W never did. If Obama can't get the legislation he wants passed with a filibuster proof majority, it 'ain't the GOP's fault: Obama has a serious leadership problem with his own party!

Now that hard choices have to be made, instead of coming up with new ideas, negotiations, and compromise, they throw tantrums instead of cooperating and crafting legislation.

Please. With a filibuster proof majority, what reason does the democratic majority have for listening to the GOP? All politicians like to talk about bi-partisanship, but none really mean it. And when the party in power can't get what they want passed, they "throw a tantrum" and whine about lack of cooperation from the other party.

 

[russ_watters]

No, and no. You see, Russ, you are trying to put everyone into little boxes again.

Me? That's you creating the false dichotomy, Ivan. You putting words in peoples' mouths, claiming there are people (none here...) labeling Obama a socialist. You're creating a strawman.

He has been President for a year, and I see someone who has governed from the middle.

Since you consider yourself to be in the center, that is unsurprising.

Try understanding the point before passing judgment. Little boxes, Russ, little boxes - they don't exist.

...then why are you creating them, Ivan?

Lets back up a little, Ivan. Here's what you said in the OP:

Many here are surely familiar with the claims that Obama is a closet socialist.

No, I'm not familiar with any particular claim. Perhaps you could cite your claim, then we can analyze the particular citation. Otherwise, you've just created a purposely argumentative thread.