News Is Obama a Socialist or a Capitalist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bit
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the perception of President Obama as a "closet socialist," highlighting the irony that both staunch capitalists and self-identified socialists express disdain for him. Participants note that many critics of socialism in the U.S. simultaneously benefit from social programs, which raises questions about their understanding of socialism. The conversation touches on the political spectrum, with some arguing that Obama is extremely liberal compared to the average American, while others assert that he governs from the center. The debate also includes references to health care reform and the role of Congress, emphasizing that Obama faces significant opposition from the GOP, which complicates his ability to enact change. Participants express frustration over the lack of meaningful banking regulations and the perception that Obama has not fulfilled his promises, such as transparency in government. The dialogue reflects broader themes of political labels, the complexity of governance, and the challenges of bipartisan cooperation in a polarized political landscape.
  • #31
GeorginaS said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
turbo-1 said:
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.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
  • · Replies 253 ·
9
Replies
253
Views
27K
  • · Replies 489 ·
17
Replies
489
Views
63K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
8K
  • · Replies 643 ·
22
Replies
643
Views
72K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K
Replies
44
Views
7K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K