Barack Obama: Socialist

reply to post by Johnmike


No, you're mixed up again - you see, this is called an example.

If you want specifics, I'll happily provide them, and all I ask in return is that you provide the economic evidence you say proves your case

In the meantime, do me a favour and play nice.

If you do, I will.



[edit on 21/6/2008 by budski]

Socialism is the collective ownership, or control, by the people of the means of production.

Exactly.

"Socialism" is a word that the right likes to throw around, but the fact is, almost no modern country is actually "socialist" by definition.

They are in fact all capitalist market economies with social welfare programs and where some essential services are socialized.

This includes the United States.

We've had a "socialized" education system in the US for quite a long time.
Roads and infrastructure have also been socialized since the beginning.

Interestingly, read up some time on when the US cities had private instead of public firefighting companies - that's one area where the market failed to deliver in a truly epic fashion

But anyway, making a few essential services and welfare programs public does not make a country socialist - if it does the US has been "a socialist country" for at least a century.

Saying "Barack Obama is a socialist" is simply untrue.
Ask any real socialist, they'll tell you he's just another capitalist

When he starts talking about nationalizing all industry and putting the economy under public control, closing down the stock market, etc., call me

Until then, it's just another false campaign smear, another bit of the nauseating election year tide of raw misinformation

Originally posted by xmotex.


Saying "Barack Obama is a socialist" is simply untrue.
Ask any real socialist, they'll tell you he's just another capitalist

Starred.

Best quote I've heard in a long time

Modern social democracy is unlike socialism in the traditional sense which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist system, or in the Marxist sense which aims to replace it entirely. Instead, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove injustices they see in the capitalist market system. "Social democracy" is also used to refer to the particular kind of society that social democrats advocate. While some consider social democracy a moderate type of socialism, others, defining socialism in the traditional or Marxist sense, reject that designation....

The Socialist International (SI), a worldwide organization of social democratic, and labour parties, defines the socialist option as one in which it is "the people of the world who should exercise control by means of a more advanced democracy in all aspects of life: political, social, and economic." The SI emphasizes the following principles: first, freedom—not only individual liberties, but also freedom from discrimination and freedom from dependence on either the owners of the means of production or the holders of abusive political power; second, equality and social justice—not only before the law but also economic and socio-cultural equality as well, and equal opportunities for all including those with physical, mental, or social disabilities; and, third, solidarity—unity and a sense of compassion for the victims of injustice and inequality. These ideals are described in further detail in the SI's Declaration of Principles...

The prime example of social democracy is Sweden, which prospered considerably under the leadership of Olof Palme[15]. Sweden has produced a strong economy from sole proprietorships up through to multinationals (e.g., Saab, Volvo, Ikea, and Ericsson), while maintaining one of the longest life expectancies in the world, low unemployment, inflation, infant mortality, national debt, and cost of living, all while registering sizable economic growth[16].

Others also point to Norway as an example of a social democratic nation[17], where the Norwegian Labour Party played a critical role in Norway's recent political history by making social democratic reforms after WWII. In Norway, progressive taxation was introduced and the public sector greatly increased in size. Recently, Norway's economy has experienced an acceleration in economic growth, aided, in part, by the exploitation of oil deposits...

Social democracy has been criticized both from the right, by economic liberals and conservatives, and from the left, by socialists and communists[citation needed]. The majority of contemporary criticism comes from economic liberals, who advance the following arguments:

Social democrats reply[citation needed] that their policies in fact enhance individual rights by raising the standard of living of the great majority of the population, increasing social mobility, raising the power of workers and consumers in society, keeping production and, therefore, GDP higher, stabilizing economic conditions by providing economic security to individuals, and eliminating the threat of extreme poverty. Individual rights are also maintained, as in many places alternative private facilities are also available. It is also argued that, by restricting some economic rights, social democracy makes the market more fair. Social democrats also contend that the conservative administrations in the United States and Britain have been responsible for far larger budget deficits than any social democratic government.

en.wikipedia.org...


There is a lot of discussion lately about the failure of Social Democracy. As the Conservatives continue in their rise to power, we will certainly see more on this topic.
It's true that the supporters of laisse-fair capitalism are quick to point out that the failures of social programs, yet they never point out the obvious successes...

Best Standard of Living in the WorldThe Nordic countries are overall the best countries to live in the world, according to the Human Development Report which is published annually by the United Nations. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland figure among the top countries on the UN index because of their high levels of education, democracy, income and public health.

gulfcoastprogressive.blogspot.com...

The highest standard of living 4 times in a row with the highest GDP. They must be doing something right. Looking after ones own is called honor. But it also results in an amazing country.

A panel of Nobel Prize winners in economics has highly praised Norway's economic policies, ranking them at the top along with the USA. China's rapidly emerging economic might is also rated as an impressive development likely to outstrip both the USA and the European Union in time....

The survey, carried out by the prestigious American financial daily The Wall Street Journal, quizzed 12 of the 32 surviving Nobel economists which country in the world they felt had the best economic policy. Two of the Nobel prize winners chose Norway as their favorite.

www.aftenposten.no...

Why I chose to present the film that showed what Michael Moore edited from his comparison of healthcare amongst various nations because PEOPLE WOULDN"T BELIEVE THE TRUTH.
This is something to think on, countries that look after their own still manage to have thriving economies and high standards of living. Norway is a sterling example. Economy and social justice are not at odds. When I pay my taxes, I want them to boomerang back into my community and ensure a civilized advanced way of life for everyone. Otherwise, exactly who feels worthy in reaching into my pocket to fund their agendas anyway. I live in Canada. If I was living in the US, I wouldn't be paying taxes at all. Not unless they benefited the citizens enormously.

Originally posted by ANOK
Let's hear what you've got, from what I've read of your other posts it won't be much, bring it on...

Stop making fun of me!

Originally posted by ANOK
Your world of economics is just an illusion to control you. You probably wouldn't know how to survive without it...lol

...Wait, my world of economics, or economics as a science? I don't get it.

reply to post by slackerwire


Lets get this one straight, once and for all. American Politics was intended to be an event of entertainment for the Voters. American Presidents do not get Voted, Never Were Never Will.

Obama is just a Postman to deliver the Garbage !!!

I'd rather hear more from Mystiq (sorry if I spelled it wrong) and his/her idea of separate idea's for different folks.

That sounds good

Great post BTW Mystiq - I thoroughly enjoyed it

[edit on 21/6/2008 by budski]

[edit on 21/6/2008 by budski]

Originally posted by budski
Yeah,
because capitalism works SOOOO very well.

How very sarcastic of you. Not really a great way to start an earnest discussion, but I'll ignore it and hope you can follow suit. Thanks.

Capitalism is equally as imperfect as Socialism is, however it's a matter of how one wishes to live and one's ability to affect change. I've yet to see you disprove how poorly Capitalism works in plain view of mountains of government regulation and code, corporations writing laws that affect them, major increases in monopolies, reduction in competition, high taxes, oceans of red tape, government intrusion on all levels, etc, etc, etc.

Perhaps your definition of laissez faire is different than mine, but today's situation is far from the ideals of what I spoke of. To me, it really speaks more to disprove what I can only assume is your stance (since counters without support fail to disprove anything and additionally fail to support any opposition).

How much you paying at the pump now?

You've stuck yourself in quite a sticky wicket with this question. It begs far more on your part than on mine (since I didn't mention it and you neglected to support why you might ask such a question).

There are many reasons I pay more at the pump than previously in my life, however it's not really something that requires quite as much noise as it's getting. Gas prices are gas prices. Wise men adjust to changing circumstances. Unwise men complain about it while still driving ridiculously inefficient vehicles. Such is the way of America of late.

How much extra are you paying for weekly groceries now?

I am paying more, but I, my wife, and my three kids eat well on $120 a MONTH. We never eat out, do not eat pre-made or manufactured food, and eat a diet low in meat.

Solutions are easy, but American's are comfortable to spend unwisely and complain. The spirit of rebellion and social disobedience are weak.

Capitalism at work - and out of control - it's now government by corporate decree.

Well, I'd have to say we have fallen very far from the tree of laissez faire; to claim what we have is pure capitalism (or even close) is a gross mis-characterization of the reality of our current economy.

We live on debt. Personal debt, local debt, state debt, and national debt. Living outside our means, in combination with poor policy and currency manipulation, have left us in a poor state with an economy that IS a bubble with sub-bubbles floating out of it and popping (housing market, dot com, etc).

Freedom my backside - you have as much freedom as the corporate world allows you to have.

No more.

You might want to come with something a bit stronger next time. Examples, points, reason, etc. I ask this of you because you seem to be on here for some reason, so let's get to it.

Deny Ignorance isn't some cute catch phrase, it's a standard to stand behind or get the hell out of the way.

You just need to ask yourself what type of man or woman you really are.

I'll easily be able to judge the truth of it by your reply, and I hope it's one of strength.

Thanks
KJ

[edit on 22-6-2008 by KrazyJethro]

Originally posted by mystiq

Best Standard of Living in the WorldThe Nordic countries are overall the best countries to live in the world, according to the Human Development Report which is published annually by the United Nations. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland figure among the top countries on the UN index because of their high levels of education, democracy, income and public health.

This is true, and I'm a laissez faire kinda guy (a reasoned libertarian type).

I find the "privatize the policy and fire department and divvy up the military to the states, including huge navy ships" types to be highly unreasonable and a little over the top in the state's rights department.

As to the quote I placed from you, it should be no question that Socialism, of varying degrees, can and has worked to good effect.

Est. 2007
Norway - 4.6 million
Sweden - 9 million
Denmark - 5.5 million
Finland - 5.2 million
Iceland - 300,000

for good measure:

Switzerland - 7.5 million

These are, at best, small numbers to deal with though. This is the reason it works. America, we have 50 states, almost none of which is similar economically, socially, or historically.

I think it reasonable to say that under a laissez faire Federal Government, states could easily choose for themselves what type of economic system they favored.

If Massachusetts decided to have a more Socialistic society, they could employ a Universal Health Care system. If Vermont did not, they could have a 5% sales tax and no other taxes. Health Insurance Companies are state by state already, so the system is in place.

One would be free to choose what system worked best for them; freedom encapsulated.

The foundations of rational State's Rights are as such:

1) Increased local control
2) Increased ability to contact (directly) your area's representative. It's not even that hard to see said person personally and chat with them.
3) Increased accuracy in spending on the needs of the people in the state.
4) Increased transparency. I mean come on, who can decode the federal budget. You'd need 10 million and a team of lawyers and accountants just to start.
5) Increased ability to enact change (and at a more rapid pace), or even become a representative yourself.
6) Increased local interaction. I find national thinking has aided our local despondency.

There are more, but you get the idea. Hope to hear from you.

Thanks
KJ

[edit on 22-6-2008 by KrazyJethro]

reply to post by slackerwire


I don't know how many times you need to be smacked in the head to realize your statements are wrong, or if it's dependent on what is smacking you in the head.

However, for the 3rd time, I will point out, you stated the minimum wage is not a "living wage" but an "entry level". THIS IS WRONG.

As the source pointed out, each state can set it's own "minimum wage" level. As an example, Santa Fe has set a level of $9.50, and this is defined as a "living wage". Therefore, your statement of a minimum wage only being an "entry level" wage is incorrect, Santa Fe's minimum wage is a "living wage". Now, if you won't take that on board from that source, try this one.

www.freenewmexican.com...

Furthermore, you state that an increase in minimum wages will cause job losses. The Economic Policy Insitute has produced a report on this that you can go and read for yourself, but the simple facts are detailed in this link.

www.epi.org...

There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.

* A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
* Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment.
* New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale.
* A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.

reply to post by SevenThunders


I can't believe you can even talk that way. People are "imported" now? It's clear you have very bigoted opinions on people and other countries.

Oh, and the US isn't suffering economically? It hasn't been "importing" Mexicans? And Islam demands violence? All Muslims are violent? All blacks are drug dealers too right? And all Mexicans are here illegally and only good to be cleaners and bus boys?

Get out more man.

reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity



I never said I would stop investing all together.

I would look for different investment vehicles which may not provide as healthy of a return, but would definitely be beneficial when it comes to giving the feds a giant middle finger in terms of taxes.

reply to post by Alethia


Again, if you wish to prove me wrong, try using fact instead of your feeble minded opinion.

Why not point out which section of the FLSA designated the minimum wage as a "living wage".

Why not point out court decisions upholding that opinion?

Minimum wage is for entry level people with no job skills.

Minimum wage is for ex cons fresh out of prison with no chances of gainful employment.

Minimum wage is ENTRY LEVEL. Why should someone flipping burgers make 10 bucks an hour?

Since you seem to lack the necessary knowledge to provide a rational answer for that, I'll help you:

They shouldn't.

Originally posted by Johnmike

Stop making fun of me!

lol how old are you? I was just pointing out a fact, sry bud. Maybe if you had something to actually back up what you're saying instead of one line responses that are meaningless. What happened to picking apart my post? Isn't that what we're here for?

...I don't get it.

Well, I figured that out already.

Markets soon result in what are termed "market forces," "impersonal" forces which ensure that the people in the economy do what is required of them in order for the economy to function. The market system, in capitalist apologetics, is presented to appear as a regime of freedom where no one forces anyone to do anything, where we "freely" exchange with others as we see fit. However, the facts of the matter are somewhat different, since the market often ensures that people act in ways opposite to what they desire or forces them to accept "free agreements" which they may not actually desire. Wage labour is the most obvious example of this, for, as we indicated in section B.4, most people have little option but to agree to work for others.

Source

From section B.4...

Private property is in many ways like a private form of state. The owner determines what goes on within the area he or she "owns," and therefore exercises a monopoly of power over it. When power is exercised over one's self, it is a source of freedom, but under capitalism it is a source of coercive authority. As Bob Black points out in The Abolition of Work:
"The liberals and conservatives and Libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phoneys and hypocrites. . . You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or a monastery. . . A worker is a part-time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called 'insubordination,' just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. . .The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are 'free' is lying or stupid." The Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 21

Originally posted by Alethia
Don't hear anything about life is tough, get used to it, we want an underclass.

You are promised the PURSUIT of happiness.
You are NOT promised happiness by freeloading off the work of others.

Originally posted by carslake
Obviously socialism is not what Barack Obama stands for,

Obviously it is. A NWO socialism. His 'global poverty tax' is a prime example. He wants to tax the American working class to death and make them vitally dependent upon the government to survive. This goes against the very fabric of America .. it goes against her spirit.

Originally posted by disgustedbyhumanity
That is just faulty thinking. .No matter what the tax rates people will always invest their extra money.

That's is just faulty thinking. Obama's plans will make the tax rates so high that there WILL NOT BE any extra money. He is Jimmy Carter II. The unemployment rates will sky rocket and the small business's will be out of business due to his economic blunders.

It will be a freak'n nightmare.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
This is the foundation of liberty: personal property.

Very true. THIS is the American spirit.

Regardless of what the proponents of Socialism might say, I owe nothing to my fellow man. Fundamentally, unearned money is spent far less prudently than money earned. Social Programs, for the most part, equate to unearned and undeserved money.

Words of wisdom from Krazy Jethro.

reply to post by slackerwire


I don't know what is wrong with you man, you have no ability to read or accept the truth. It is not my opinion that the minimum wage is a "living wage", Santa Fe LAW defines it as a "living wage". I didn't make that law, they did. My opinion doesn't come into it.

You also claimed:

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that raising the minimum wage results in fewer jobs, as business owners are forced to cut back on staff so they don't have to raise prices.

The 2 previous times there was an increase in the minimum wage, EPI and FPI studies showed that there was no negative impact on job losses. It is not my opinion that an increase in minimum wage caused job losses, studies show it didn't. In fact, the studies show that there could be a positive overall effect.

It is you who has the opinions that are based on selfish ideology and not fact, not past proof where it happened the way you think it will this time.

The most galling factor is that you state you're not going to vote, yet anyone who votes for Obama is going to turn the country to sh*t. Well, if that's the case, vote for McCain so at least the country doesn't go to sh*t. If you are so concerned, vote to make sure it doesn't happen and Obama doesn't get into power, put your money where your mouth is, don't just throw your toys out the pram and put the onus on others.

reply to post by Alethia


Where can I see those studies? It's pretty terrible that I haven't seen them before.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Obviously it is. A NWO socialism. His 'global poverty tax' is a prime example. He wants to tax the American working class to death and make them vitally dependent upon the government to survive. This goes against the very fabric of America .. it goes against her spirit.

Sorry but it is NOT socialism...

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives…
…It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

When the US government takes away the pyramid scheme we live under and puts the ownership/control of production in the hands of those that do the producing then you will have socialism.

Please don't insult socialists by claiming Obama is one, but I agree with your sentiment. If anybody should be taxed it should be the rich not the working class. The working class is the back-bone of any economy, without us there would be no rich people. They keep us oppressed for that very reason.

Originally posted by Alethia


I don't know what is wrong with you man, you have no ability to read or accept the truth. It is not my opinion that the minimum wage is a "living wage", Santa Fe LAW defines it as a "living wage". I didn't make that law, they did. My opinion doesn't come into it.

Whats wrong with me is that I am forced to deal with morons like you.

I mentioned the FEDERAL minimum wage law, and you come back with the law in the craphole town called Santa Fe.

Individual jurisdictions can do whatever they wish, but when it comes to the FEDERAL minimum wage law, living wage isn't mentioned anywhere.

You also claimed:

The 2 previous times there was an increase in the minimum wage, EPI and FPI studies showed that there was no negative impact on job losses. It is not my opinion that an increase in minimum wage caused job losses, studies show it didn't. In fact, the studies show that there could be a positive overall effect.

Really?

I guess this EPI report is wrong then?

Today the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) criticized SB 875, legislation scheduled to come to a vote today in the Minnesota House, which would increase the state’s minimum wage by nearly 30% over the next 15 months. The group stated that any attempt to assist low-income employees through mandated wage hikes is misguided and will result in job loss for the very people targeted for help.

Source

Among the new research finding job loss from higher minimum wages is a paper by Dr. Lowell Taylor of Carnegie Mellon University (The Employment Effect in Retail Trade of a Minimum Wage: Evidence from California, the Employment Policies Institute and forthcoming in the Journal of Business and Economic Statistics). Using the changes in state-level minimum wages (which were also used in the fast food studies), Dr. Taylor found that significant employment lost jobs as well as declines in employment growth took place as a result of these wage increases. In contrast to the fast food studies which attempted to measure employment changes over a period of months in one small segment of minimum wage employment Dr. Taylor's work included all workers in all sectors of retail trade (including fast food), broken down into 64 industry sectors, analyzed on a county-by-county basis, over the course of a full year, in the nation's most populous state (California). Taylor's work showed a significantly depressing effect on job growth in retail trade following a minimum wage increase.

Source

It is you who has the opinions that are based on selfish ideology and not fact, not past proof where it happened the way you think it will this time.

Selfish ideology? How so?

The most galling factor is that you state you're not going to vote, yet anyone who votes for Obama is going to turn the country to sh*t. Well, if that's the case, vote for McCain so at least the country doesn't go to sh*t. If you are so concerned, vote to make sure it doesn't happen and Obama doesn't get into power, put your money where your mouth is, don't just throw your toys out the pram and put the onus on others.

The country will turn to sh*t no matter which one of these retards gets elected. The only difference is how big of a sh*t sandwich will Americans be forced to eat.

Personally, I hope the country goes straight down the toilet. Americans deserve it.

Thanks for trying though, yet you have failed once again.