Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama is not a Socialist!!!!

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Please stop with your blathering ignorance. If you need to, take it one small piece at a time. I will spell it out for you slowly. If you think Obama is a Socialist, you aren't doing your homework.

1. Obama is not a socialist - his health care program requires you to buy insurance from private companies. That mostly closely resembles fascism. (Fascism, by definition, constitutes a state contract with corporatism to dissuade dissent and promote a national totalitarian function. Could also be construed as Corporatism)
2. Obama is not a socialist - he signed off on the mega-corporate and mega-bank bailouts, sending huge portions of our economy into the hands of the already wealthy. (This is a sign of Corporatism or Oligarchy)
3. Obama is not a socialist - He expanded loan programs for small businesses (this is Corporatism)
4. Obama is not a socialist - He expanded the war on terror. This could be construed as Corporatism if one is cynical, Fascism if one is a fear monger or hawkish if one is a neo-con. Expansive war policies are not usually a part of socialism. Please remember "national socialism" is not the same as socialism. They are two very different birds.
5. Obama is not a socialist - At first look, helping to extend unemployment payments seems socialist. However, what you need to pay attention to here is what Obama failed to do. He failed to say or do anything to stop the Corporatists from lowering wages and reducing benefits. This did in fact happen - and without so much as a comment from Obama, suggesting once again he favors Corporatist policies - in this case, by not acting.
6. Obama is not a socialist - he already extended the Bush tax cuts once. A purely Corporatist move, which was strictly anti-socialist.
7. Obama is not a socialist - he was beyond lenient with BP and their destroy the entire gulf fiasco. He basically did what they told him to. Hello Corporatist.


Nearly everything Obama does is Corporatist. Therefor, he is a Corporatist, as was his predecessor. They are nearly indecipherable as presidents if you take away the names.

Feel free to add the other instances of Obama taking the Corporatist line - there are many.




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Socialist is used against Obama because it is a buzz-word that results in a mindless negative response to the word and anything next to it. American's do not, have not, and will likely never not know what Socialism really looks like.

Obama is barely to the left of a mainstream Republican just 6 years ago.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Yeah but Fox news and Breibart says it so it must be true.


Obama is the furthest thing from leftist/socialist/communist one could ever be.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Socialist may or may not be accurate... Really I think he just fills out the authoritative role, as have his predecessors. That would be the most accurate description IMO



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


He may not be a socialist, but he is a supporter of socialist programs and therefore at the minimum has socialist leanings.

On your first point - Yes the compromised health-care bill is not itself socialist, however anyone remember what he was actually shooting for?



WASHINGTON — Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race. "The time has come for universal health care in America," Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group. "I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said. Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. His chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, also are strong proponents of universal health care and have promised to offer their plans.


www.usatoday.com...

Universal Healthcare = Socialism

Don't believe me...

en.wikipedia.org...

Even Wikipedia agrees.

As for points 2 and 3, well that's an argument of semantics. Bail outs aren't quite socialism, but Quantitative Easing is and we in the US have done a bunch QEs.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for point 4, war is war and has little to nothing to due with democracy, socialism, communism nor any other government type. All governments fight wars regardless of type.

As for point 5, the Fair Labor Standards act was passed in 2007 just before B-rock took office so he didn't need to do anything, Bush already had. As for benefits increasing under Obama, I refer you back to the health care bill.

As for point 6, no arguments here.

As for point 7, what does a private company being punished or not punished for an error have to do with the type of governmental in power? Hitler punished companies and took them, just like Chavez, and well now look at Argentina. We do this here in the US too.

So I guess my question is what has B-rock done that doesn't have some sort of socialist leaning?
edit on 7-5-2012 by thesungod because: Spelling... I think I got it all.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
"So you tellin' me old white dudes in suits on TV have been lyin' to me this whole time?"

Jessica Williams (The Daily Show): Obama Not A Socialist [link]

edit on 5/7/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I agree with the OP-----Obama has always struck me as more Mussolini than Marx. And like Benito, he is a chronic bumbler. Fate should have made him just another lackey to some more powerful, covert, despot...



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigBlackDog
...Fate should have made him just another lackey to some more powerful, covert, despot...


You made me swallow my gum....



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
If I put "Obama is an idiot" in place of "Obama is not a socialist" then your thread would still be accurate. It's amazing how terrible those decisions were/are.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
If I put "Obama is an idiot" in place of "Obama is not a socialist" then your thread would still be accurate. It's amazing how terrible those decisions were/are.


I agree with your thought, though idiot isn't the proper term really.
I don't agree with any of those decisions (sans extending unemployment benefits, though even that should have been coupled with an actual job program so it wouldn't be needed in perpetuity)
And they are not socialist.

@bigblackdog - he does indeed remind me of a Mussolini light. But Mussolini at least got the trains to run on time LOL

@thesungod - we are talking about what he has done, not what he said. He said a lot of stuff. Didn't do any of it. Forced corporatized healthcare is not socialist. That's not government run healthcare, it's a fascist / corporatist idea. And that's a fact.
edit on 7-5-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Socialism primarily is public ownership of wealth, property and the means of production. So, of course Obama is a socialist, at least in part. I don't think it has to be all or nothing. He has expressed sentiments of this type on many occasions. This does not mean he doesn't have ideas that fall out of the realm of socialism though. Also, no, I wouldn't call him a pure socialist though that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in socialist ideas.

Obama's ideas can be described as communism, corporatism, fascism and yes, socialism. Though I agree, and not to be redundant, he can't be called a "pure socialist" but really I think that is just splitting hairs. People that call him a socialist aren't 100% right but they are not 100% wrong either. He could be described as any of the four above "ism's" and people would be correct, at least in part. One thing he is not though, is a capitalist.

Obama’s stated intention has been for redistribution of wealth as a means to help the poor, the underprivileged and so on.

Obama is a supporter of social security, medicare and similar obvious socialist programs. America is in many ways a socialist country and anybody who supports the socialist programs could be called a socialist rightfully even if the majority of their ideas could not be described that way.

This includes the majority of people in D.C. calling Obama a socialist. Just my thoughts though. Obviously many would disagree I am sure but a socialist program is a socialist program and a supporter of such a program can be rightfully called a socialist because of that support.

I think people that get upset at Obama being called a socialist are simply trying to be too specific. There is no special word for a communist/corporatist/fascist/socialist. any of those should be accepted as at least partly true.

I imagine you are not likely to agree with me, such is the world. Personally I like calling him a corporate communist. He is certainly a collectivist (as opposed to an individualist) which is close enough for me to be fine with the term "socialist" being applied to him.
edit on 7-5-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


Isn't it easier to just say Obama is a fascist? We know what he isn't LOL. I mean seriously, his leanings are primarily based on Mussolini's corporatism, except the corporations own and run the country rather than the government running the country. Obama is just a corporatist lackey as well, but he uses socialist policies to try and throw everyone off his handler's main goals which I believe to be to run the country like a corporation. A corporation which owns every asset, has the right to make all the rules and knows what its human capital is doing all the time. Corporations are not democracies, they are generally fascist dictatorships.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


But he WANTED and TRIED TO GET Universal Healthcare, which is my point. He wanted and tried to get a socialist medical system.

www.guardian.co.uk...

He tried to get a socialist ideal passed, didn't work. Neither the Affordable Health Care for America Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act never really passed, it got compromised on to become what it is now. Rewrote the bill and now we have the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

en.wikipedia.org...

He tried to press a socialist agenda and failed. So how doesn't he have socialist leanings?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Here is what a socialist would do.

The Tea Party screams and shouts and raise their tiny impotent fists over the price of gas, demanding that their leader does something.

Knowing that it is impossible to control the price of a world wide commodity, because that is just crazy talk; fearless leader makes a proclamation HENCEFORTH ALL US OIL WILL BE OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT, Oil companies you drill it, but we control it and the price will be rolled back to 25.00 The oil companies say what is the point start to pack up and leave and fearless leader has but one choice -- these facilities are now owned by the US.

That is what socialism is that is what the Teapublicans say when they scream for the president to do something about the cost of oil and build the pipeline (so the Canadians have easier access to the world wide commodity markets)

Socialism is not providing roads and infrastructure, or providing your population of 305 million soles with at least the basics in health and welfare.

It all boils down to the fact that each and everyone on the right who screams socialism is nothing more than an authoritarian tool!

Sorry this just yanks my chain.
edit on 8-5-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Exactly, he's a Corporatist.

But the masses are dumb, and they only think in extremes and blue/red, left/right, etc.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesungod
reply to post by pirhanna
 


He may not be a socialist, but he is a supporter of socialist programs and therefore at the minimum has socialist leanings.

On your first point - Yes the compromised health-care bill is not itself socialist, however anyone remember what he was actually shooting for?



WASHINGTON — Every American should have health care coverage within six years, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday as he set an ambitious goal soon after jumping into the 2008 presidential race. "The time has come for universal health care in America," Obama said at a conference of Families USA, a health care advocacy group. "I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country," the Illinois senator said. Obama was previewing what is shaping up to be a theme of the 2008 Democratic primary. His chief rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, also are strong proponents of universal health care and have promised to offer their plans.


www.usatoday.com...

Universal Healthcare = Socialism

Don't believe me...

en.wikipedia.org...

Even Wikipedia agrees.



How does universal heathcare fit into socialism. The ideal concept at least the grown-up concept would be single payor - like the medicare system - When your grandma goes to get a check up where does she go? She has to find some means of production which would be a doctor or a hospital. Is that a govenment hospital -- no is the doctor a government employee -- no. The change is that the insurance companies don't get to skim of the top and do the wink wink cost negotiations with the provider.

The Veterans hospital system is more socialized than the single payor concept. The Veterans system also gets a hell of a deal on drugs that the insurance companies have been unable to wink wink secure.

I grew up in the 50s and sixties arguing about this with my father a died in the wool commie hating Nebraska doctor. He was so so wrong - but the AMA was consistently trying to protect their cash cow - which would be you.

If you look at it streets and sewers could be considered socialist -- I guess Ms Rand would be ok with that. What she would not be ok with would be taking the Social Security and Medicare she relied upon.

So yeah I don't believe you your argument is hollow.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Okay. I'm not quite sure what your trying to argue here.

1. Whether or not Universal Healthcare is socialist or not?

Universal Healthcare is completely different from how our current medical system works. Ask any German, Canadian or Brit how their hospitals work.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.allhealth.org...

The government runs them and pays for them, period end of story. They pay taxes for these hospitals. Now that being said they can go and pay at a private hospital for private care (And often better unfortunately.) What is socialism?



Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


So how are government run hospitals under governmental ownership and administration, not socialism?


2. Whether or not Obama tried to get a Universal Healthcare system passed?

Try reading my post above your first one on this thread. He tried and failed and we got the healthcare bill we got, instead of Universal Healthcare.


You all need to stop and learn what socialism is and isn't. It isn't a dirty word, but an ideal, a damn good one, but when not every one contributes it doesn't work. Some people are just greedy. If B-rock had passed a Universal Healthcare system I would be an Obama fanatic, but he couldn't get it done.

I mean the very term "Universal Health Care" was previously known as "Social Health Protection".

As for the whole Single-payer system (with an e not an o) is Socialist in theory too.



Single-payer health care is medical care funded from a single insurance pool, run by the state.


en.wikipedia.org...

So even on the Single-payer system, it is run by the state or government. Again how is this not socialist?


Oh and by the by. I'm on TriCare Prime so I know all about the VA and private insurance.
edit on 8-5-2012 by thesungod because: Spelling... I think I got it all.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Medicare is a single payer system -- where is all this run by the state stuff. The doctor that I go to under a cash or private insurance claim -- is the same doctor that the guy next to me is going to but his claim is with medicare.

Just saying that there are government run hospitals does not make it so. Even in countries with socialized medicine nothing prevents you from buying private insurance and going to a private clinic. There have also been government run hospitals for years -- Grady in in Atlanta, Cook county in Chicago etc. Not well funded hospitals but never the less.

I don't see how you can't see this is out of control -- when I started in business - everyone had company insurance and there was no charge. Now I am lucky enough to have company insurance -- it costs me 4000 per year and my wife and I each have a 1500 deductible. That doesn't really hurt me but the people in the shop make about 30k a year it is a big chunk for them.

I have a couple of acquaintances Canadians (not that that is a bad thing) they are nurses in the robotic surgery (Michelangelo) department of the local hospital. They are astonished at how wacked the American system is and how poorly it works, and how wasteful it is.

So yeah by your measurement it isn't socialized medicine.
edit on 8-5-2012 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Medicare is a socialist program too. I think your missing me here.

I never said anything about it being out of control or not. I agree whole heartedly the US healthcare system is a mess.

The Physician may be private, but the mechanism by which you GET to see the Physician is not. It's government controlled, owned and operated. The government gets to say which Physicians you can and can't see. You have no choice in the matter under Medicare, you just get a choice off a list. You can't take it anywhere. Like you can with some private plans.

I mean are you even reading all of posts or just skimming them?
edit on 8-5-2012 by thesungod because: Spelling... I think I got it all.



posted on May, 11 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
He has some socialist agendas

but hes more a stateist or totalitarian





new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join