Ron Paul: "Obama is not a socialist but a corporatist"

I think he is correct, i've always hated when people call Obama a socialist.
Socialism is about redistribution of wealth, where the money is redistributed to the people not to corporate interests and friends or bankers in similar fraternities.

what the hell is up with fox news though
happy hour, news reporting in a bar with women showing legs?
just weird man

anyhow
thoughts?

LOL , all the Ron Paul supporters were calling Obama a socialist before this statement.

, But now they changed their minds.

Who is the sheep , eh?

[edit on 15-4-2010 by WXBackdoor]

Originally posted by WXBackdoor
LOL , all the Ron Paul supporters were calling Obama a socialist before this statement.

, But now they changed their minds.

Who is the sheep , eh?

[edit on 15-4-2010 by WXBackdoor]

Nah.. Just like them, Ron Paul is not really sure. He probably cant tell either the difference between a corporatist and a Socialist, so he just says what comes to his mind...

Corporatist...Socialist...etc, etc.

I've got an idea. How about just plain corrupt?

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Cincinnatus]

Originally posted by WXBackdoor
LOL , all the Ron Paul supporters were calling Obama a socialist before this statement.

, But now they changed their minds.

Who is the sheep , eh?

[edit on 15-4-2010 by WXBackdoor]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I still think Obama is socialist. Don't make sweeping generalizations with no evidence to back them up.

Paul is a good man. he'd make a better president then Obama any day, but that's a discussion for another time.

I Believe all Presidents up to this point have been corporatist with the few exceptions.

I don't support any one who is put in the white house, simply because they were meant to be there to continue with the Bull that has been going on for years and has destroyed Peoples liberties in the interest of Greedy Corporations.

America has become the outcome of Greed enough said.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


He's definitely not socialist. He has some collectivist tendencies, but not true socialism. He, and part of the Democratic party, seems to be moving towards being bureaucratic collectivist.

For those who don't know what that means, I'll explain.

Socialism at its core supports the people through redistribution of wealth, often through high taxes. Western Europe is socialist.

Collectivism in some ways is like socialism, it stresses the concept of a community identity and working for the greater good. Yet, collectivism doesn't promise education, employment, healthcare, etc.

Bureaucratic collectivism, has the people working for the greater good idea, but it doesn't benefit the people. Instead it benefits a bureaucratic elite, which could be party elite and corporate elite.

[edit on 15/4/10 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by Tibris
I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I still think Obama is socialist.

Define socialism and how Obama's actions have reflected your belief that this fits.

Actually, let me define socialism for you in very plain language...

a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
an economic system based on state ownership of capital

ok...go. Lets say...3 policy examples that shows this wild socialist agenda....(remember, it must be something that Bush never did also...else we might as well simply call all POTUS's socialists)

Does your state own the businesses in your area? Does the Fed suddenly run industry? Is your shopping center suddenly a federally owned depot station where you can purchase state or federally owned clothing and goods?

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Interesting perspective...I wonder how you would catagorise George Bush Jr.s presidency since you seem to think outside the box.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
what the hell is up with fox news though
happy hour, news reporting in a bar with women showing legs?
just weird man

Too right, when i watch on youtube, i just listen to what is said.

But obama is a socialist, but he does not have absolute power to do what he wants. This is why he has to bend over for others.

But i think obama is a socialist.

Originally posted by WXBackdoor
LOL , all the Ron Paul supporters were calling Obama a socialist before this statement.

, But now they changed their minds.

Who is the sheep , eh?

You, your the sheep

all the ron paul supporters called Obama or socialist or was it the tea partyers?

because i'm pretty sure most ron paul supporters don't think too highly of Sarah Paulin, yet she has a very strong presence there doesn't she.

you pretty much have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about

reply to post by SaturnFX


The best way to define his era, was Plutarchy or Plutocratic Oligarchy.

After 9-11 it became an Imperialist Plutarchy.

Whats interesting is the Plutarchy is still out there, hijacking the Tea Party movement and facing off with Obama's new Bureaucratic elite.

Reminds me of that terrible Alien vs. Predator film's tagline: Whoever wins, We lose.

I think a lot of people are mistaking fascist for socialist.

Or people are still too scared to label their own president as a fascist. Maybe its still WW2 syndrome, but you don't hear the title of fascist getting thrown around much do you?

I am not sure, either way, I'm not sure what stance Obama Admin has yet tbh.

reply to post by Coolaid


But fascists where socialists.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Coolaid

 

But fascists where socialists.

Corporatist is a nice word for fascist IMO.

Fascists were socialists... ?

I don't think that's how it works, but it may sometimes.

Originally posted by andy1033
reply to post by Coolaid

 

But fascists where socialists.

Not exactly, the Italian type had this idea of power being distributed though syndicates.

They didn't exactly take over businesses or offer tons of social services either.

Instead, corporations had a greater say in government.

Fascists opposed what they called supercapitalism, which is unregulated and uncontrolled business.

They considered communism, a state version of supercapitalism.

So they poked their noses into business, but didn't run them.

Fascists are collectivists though, and call for national identity and serving the greater good, but lack the social benefits of communism or socialism.

Originally posted by Coolaid
Corporatist is a nice word for fascist IMO.

Yep, i think ron paul may of been playing with words here, lol.

Let's face it,

The reality is that we live in a fascist country. We won a battle against Germany, but they really won the war because our country has become fascist.

With that said, whether there is a republican or democrat president, they are mostly corporatists.

If you are not a corporatist, you end up like JFK. Sad but true reality of this country.

Originally posted by andy1033
But obama is a socialist, but he does not have absolute power to do what he wants. This is why he has to bend over for others.

I basically agree with that. As for his own personal philosophy, I think Obama is almost certainly a socialist. As a matter of political reality, however, his ability to implement that philosophy is limited by much more moderate attitudes overall among the public and even Congress. Instead of taking a giant leap towards socialism, he can only move the country incrementally in that direction and the mechanism he's using is increased regulation. In doing so, he can leave the veneer of capitalism and private ownership in place, while at the same time ripping the underpinnings of both to pieces and giving the government more authority.

The one potential contradiction that people will point out is that some of his policies have directly benefited the wealthiest of the elites, but I believe those people are looking at that point incorrectly. It has nothing to do about political philosophy, but good old fashioned corruption. Those are the people who hold all of the cards to these politicians' re-election and power. Someone mentioned a plutocracy earlier and I think that fits perfectly. Its a system within a system...one set of rules for the haves, another set of rules for the have-nots. Its always that way, regardless of the political system.

I agree with the poster who said we are living in a Plutocracy.

The defintion
"plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

link
www.progressiveliving.org...