Debunking Obama As Anti-Business Socialist

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


This is the condition we find ourselves in….


Socialism - a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
definition


President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over our economy, health care, finance, education, food, manufacturing, and transportation. We are transitioning away from capitalism under his reign as POTUS.

Epic Thread FAIL!


Agreed!
Truly the epitome of an epic thread fail!




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I can't believe some of you really think the USA is anything close to being socialist.


So brainwashed and just backwards.

Please go read about socialism/communism...what it actually MEANS. Not going to argue with someone that doesn't know up from down.

Continue to be played by TPTB because you're too lazy or stuck in a certain mental state to actually educate yourself. Stay ignorant to your own peril......

edit on 22-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
I can't believe some of you really think the USA is anything close to being socialist.


So brainwashed and just backwards.

Please go read about socialism/communism...what it actually MEANS. Not going to argue with someone that doesn't know up from down.

Continue to be played by TPTB because you're too lazy or stuck in a certain mental state to actually educate yourself. Stay ignorant to your own peril......

edit on 22-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Funny thing too.. anyone that starts reading up about socialism learns pretty quickly that there are exactly as many definitions of socialism as their are socialists.

It's a "fill in what it means to you" ideology.... Kind of like "hope n change"



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Name calling has really convinced me that your point of view is correct.
Not!



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96



he largest social engineering program going on right now is the product of capitalism. Every where you look there are advertisements trying to convince you to buy things you don't need.


Hardly and we all know what ideology uses government to force buy corporate products ads not used.

Ss,medicare,medicaid,free education,



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


Honestly don't care. Read and learn on your own or don't.

Not going to have a debate with someone that can't understand why Obamacare is the total opposite of socialism.

edit on 22-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle

Originally posted by neo96



he largest social engineering program going on right now is the product of capitalism. Every where you look there are advertisements trying to convince you to buy things you don't need.


Hardly and we all know what ideology uses government to force buy corporate products ads not used.

Ss,medicare,medicaid,free education,



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Well, one of the big issues is that many companies are just sitting on the profit and not spending it on expansion, jobs etc - or if they are spending it, they are not spending it in the US.

The reasons behind that kind of depend on who you ask though. Economic uncertainty certainly plays a part,

Why U.S. Companies Are Not Spending Money


“Prior to the financial crisis, there was pressure on companies to have as efficient a balance sheet as possible,” writes Milligan. “In recent years, firms have dramatically rebuilt their cash holdings through restraining such areas as capital spending, dividend payments, share buybacks or M&A. Looking ahead, it is hard to see a sustained revival in any of the major economies unless companies start to release this cash.”

What will lead to company spending?

Milligan says improvements in business activity and reduced levels of uncertainty for starters, followed by an increase in lending and a stronger than expected economic recovery into 2013. Right now, the world economy has no forward momentum. Corporates need to see upgrades to forecasts for the major economies, that would revive business sentiment. Until then, U.S. companies are still going to be hoarders.


In some respects is kind of like needing a job, but everyone wants experience so you can't get a job. In this case its company spending would help the bad economy, but companies are reluctant to spend because the economy is bad.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


You got that right.
Anyone that supports Big business in our government are anti free market.
Does anyone actually think the big corporations would be serving the best interest of the country or thier cronies in their circle.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 





SS is liberalism. Liberalism is capitalism.


Yes SS is what todays pundits call "liberalism" that is not capitalism case in point if a person paid 100% of their contributions in that fund that would be a different story.

But since they only pay 6% that socialist government makes the employer match that contribution that comes no where near covering the benefits received,.

The difference is take more money from other people which is not capitalism then that is where those other isms come in to play communism,socialism.

You know the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, then of course then why do all the "capitalists" trying to ban guns?

Since that is a multibillion dollar industry that employs millions of Americans

Clearly the current regime is anti business considering SS alone kills job creation, and wealth creation because there are other investment opportunties elsewhere.

But that doesn't fit with the socialist agenda the only money anyone is suppose to have comes from the "benevolence" of government not the private sector.

Thanks for playing really has been an epic fail of the "rationalizations" for what passes for logic behind big government socialism that clearly has anti social tendencies.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
All these terms like liberalism and socialism have strayed from original definitions. Heck, even the definition of recession and depression changed with Keynesian freakonomics.

Seabag is pretty much right on though. I would characterize Obama as a globalist oligarch who wants social controls and regulations put on the common person. Sound like Lenin? Sure does to me. Sound like Putin? Sure does to me.

Obama is part of the 1%, and I'm not talking about a tough biker.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
You gotta love semantics; the mother of ALL circular arguing.




"Man that shirt is HOT"

"Nah, it is made of a wicking material, so in essence it is COOL"

"NO!!!!! If it was cool it would have RACING FLAMES on it! Therefore, your argument is debunked!!!"

"Absolutely NOT!!! The very fact that it has "FLAMES" on "IT" indicates the "perception" of "FIRE."
...Don't you see? FIRE = HOT!!!"

"Wait. What were we arguing over?"


The fact of the matter is that everyone is conditioned to tackle the symptoms of the system and avoid the ACTUAL problems.

Knowledge is not Intellect!!! Words are useless in an age where words have exponential meanings.

Arguing over issues does nothing to stop the problem... it merely redirects your energies away from the solutions.

So what flavor Kool-Aid are we drinking this week? Personally, I prefer Black Cherry.

Oh, and you are all wrong... the answer is always... ALIENS!



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


This is the condition we find ourselves in….


Socialism - a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
definition


President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over our economy, health care, finance, education, food, manufacturing, and transportation. We are transitioning away from capitalism under his reign as POTUS.

Epic Thread FAIL!


No Seabag, it's not.

America is a capitalist country.

The workers don't own the means of production so its not socialism, end of story. The definition you quoted describes the stage after the revolution overthrowing capitalism and before complete communism there is a period of adaption where highly skilled workers such as doctors earn more than say cleaners, but every worker earns more because there can be no corporate fat cats or 1% hording most of the worlds wealth. But once you get to communism even this inequality between different workers does not exists, it is a system so unimaginable that the transition to having no money or possessions, and therefore no war or poverty or inequality would take a while, probably a generation or too.

Socialism is about equality, in America the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, meaning its the opposite to socialism. Also the American empire is close to being fascist, and fascism is right-wing, whereas socialism is far-left wing.





edit on 22/1/13 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by polarwarrior

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


This is the condition we find ourselves in….


Socialism - a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
definition


President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over our economy, health care, finance, education, food, manufacturing, and transportation. We are transitioning away from capitalism under his reign as POTUS.

Epic Thread FAIL!


No Seabag, it's not.

America is a capitalist country.

The workers don't own the means of production so its not socialism, end of story. The definition you quoted describes the stage after the revolution overthrowing capitalism and before complete communism there is a period of adaption where highly skilled workers such as doctors earn more than say cleaners, but every worker earns more because there can be no corporate fat cats or 1% hording most of the worlds wealth. But once you get to communism even this inequality between different workers does not exists, it is a system so unimaginable that the transition to having no money or possessions, and therefore no war or poverty or inequality would take a while, probably a generation or too.

Socialism is about equality, in America the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, meaning its the opposite to socialism. Also the American empire is close to being fascist, and fascism is right-wing, whereas socialism is far-left wing.





edit on 22/1/13 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)


Translation... we don't live in a utopia so it's obvious that this isn't socialism.
Because we all know that once we take the means of production out of the hands of a FEW greedy people and put it in the hands of MANY greedy people things are going to be oh so much better.




edit on 22-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





You know the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, then of course then why do all the "capitalists" trying to ban guns?

Because the cry "they are going to ban our guns" is nothing more than just corporate welfare. They cry they are going to ban our guns so people run out and buy as much as they can and what happens? We don't lose our guns and the gun makers laugh all the way to the bank.



Clearly the current regime is anti business considering SS alone kills job creation, and wealth creation because there are other investment opportunities elsewhere.


Oh yes Obama is clearly anti business you can tell that by the 17 tax cuts he passed for small businesses. The local mom and pop businesses aren't doing business overseas So you must mean he is anti global corporation. And seeing how these companies wrecked our industrial infrastructure to increase their already record profits I say go for the throat.



But that doesn't fit with the socialist agenda the only money anyone is suppose to have comes from the "benevolence" of government not the private sector.


Too bad things aren't like you say in real socialist countries. Look in these countries that support socialism you will find people becoming wealthy just like in capitalist countries. They just have to work a little harder for it.




edit on 22-1-2013 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 





Because we all know that once we take the means of production out of the hands of a FEW greedy people and put it in the hands of MANY greedy people things are going to be oh so much better.


Yes it would be better. When it is in the hands of the few it is far too easy to create artificial shortages solely for the reason of driving prices up. You know it's one of the reasons America doesn't allow monopolies. When it is spread out there is more innovation and lower prices not to mention far more people get employed.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455
Translation... we don't live in a utopia so it's obvious that this isn't socialism.


You misunderstood, I said the reason we don't have socialism is because the workers don't own the means of production.

As for the "utopia", I personally do think the world would be better without the elite or TPTB, as do many ATS members. It's just that we disagree on how to remove them, I think capitalism is a system which inherently leads to this problem, so we must have a revolution and re-write the fundamental rules of the system to be one which does not allow for problems like children to starving to death while billionaires party in their mansions.
Equally problematic are the so called "communist" countries such as Russia, where the ruling class was still in control and they just name it "communism" then it ends up just as bad as capitalism! Whatever you call it, the fundamentals must be that the rich elite cannot be trusted to run the world anymore, workers must take the power from them and run things democratically.

The economy of capitalism is not democratic, you don't make any decision about the economy, the bankers and rich elite do it for you... and how has that ended up!

We need real democracy, and capitalism is anti-democratic by its nature.

edit on 22/1/13 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by polarwarrior
 



Socialism is about equality, in America the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, meaning its the opposite to socialism.


So Stalin and his close group weren't millionaires? How about Mao? Pol Pot? Sung? Would you agree these guys were socialists? How did the average 'little guy' fair under their rule? Tell me about the great social equality they created.


Looks an awful lot like the inequality we see from Obama and the millionaire bozos we have in congress today IMO.



Also the American empire is close to being fascist, and fascism is right-wing, whereas socialism is far-left wing.


You really are drinking Kool Aid, friend. Allow me to enlighten you about this myth you're perpetuating. Fascism and communism are both socialistic.


It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers.



both (fascism and communism) are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.
Link



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by polarwarrior
 



Socialism is about equality, in America the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, meaning its the opposite to socialism.


So Stalin and his close group weren't millionaires? How about Mao? Pol Pot? Sung? Would you agree these guys were socialists? How did the average 'little guy' fair under their rule? Tell me about the great social equality they created.


Looks an awful lot like the inequality we see from Obama and the millionaire bozos we have in congress today IMO.



You must of missed my second post, because I agree with you.


Those countries were not socialist, rather TPTB were still in control and the starving masses were still oppressed and enslaved. This resulted in some of the worst human rights abuses in history. The economy of Russia was state-capitalist, not socialist, and Stalin was a dictator! The means of production were owned by the bureaucracy, which was controlled by Stalin. After the 1917 revolution they kept the bureaucracy which the king Tsar had used, along with all the people who worked for the Tsar - and that structure of bureaucracy was designed to have one King or dictator at the top - this helped Stalin gained power. It was a fatal mistake, although Lenin and Trotsky were saying that the revolution was never going to work anyway, because they were isolated in a sea of capitalism.

Whatever a country calls themselves, you have to ask the question "who is in control?" Is it a dictator?, Is it a wealthy elite? is it TPTB? Or is it democratically controlled by the masses of working class people.

I still can't believe you asked if I thought those guys were socialists !! They were the exact opposite, they were fascist dictators. Their countries were socialist or communist in name only. I think North Korea calls themselves the "Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea" - but there's nothing democratic about it !! And its certainly not a PEOPLES republic!

But does the failure of North Korea mean that all democracy is bad and will never work ? No, because it's not actually a democracy - so it cannot be used as an example to show that democracy cannot work.

Sometimes I think we should just coin a new name, there's so much misunderstanding around the old ones.

The elite/ ruling class/ PTB just call the counties something which will appeal to the people so that they think it's their country which the people control themselves. Whether they use "democracy", "socialism" whatever, it doesn't change the fundamentals that TPTB are still screwing over the masses, just like they have done all through history. They are so good at it that we need to build a structure of economy and government which does not allow for them to do it. We have tried genuine capitalism, and in every country we have it TPTB still got in control. But as of yet, we have not trialed genuine communism, we have only had the rich elites version of "communism" - and that was enough to turn anybody off it for good !

Anytime genuine communism or socialism sprouts, all TPTB in capitalist countries will try to attack it because it could spell the end of their reign, it's a great threat to them and as such has received a massive amount of propaganda.

So I don't blame you for being anti-communist at all, because based on your understanding of it then I am too! But I think we could find some common ground, I think we might both agree that a country should be democratically controlled by the people, not the rich elite like bankers as they have shown themselves to be irresponsible with their power. We just have different ideas about how best to remove them from power.


PS Ayn Rand wrote fiction, she was a novelist and screen writer, so probably not the best link to provide in future or someone might tear it to shreds.

edit on 23/1/13 by polarwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
reply to post by 11235813213455
 





Because we all know that once we take the means of production out of the hands of a FEW greedy people and put it in the hands of MANY greedy people things are going to be oh so much better.


Yes it would be better. When it is in the hands of the few it is far too easy to create artificial shortages solely for the reason of driving prices up. You know it's one of the reasons America doesn't allow monopolies. When it is spread out there is more innovation and lower prices not to mention far more people get employed.



Based on what? Empirical theory and opinion?

No you're just going to have a greater number of and much worse shortages because you now have a bunch of uneducated people in control of something they know nothing of and now expect them all to make sound business decisions....with each other. Now next to nothing will get done and what does get done is substandard.

In won't even go into all the other multitude of issues you're going to see when you eliminate successfully proven hierarchy of decision making. But I will ask this.. When one or a few of the "owners" in a particular business get wise to the fact they get the same payout working less than they would get if they worked more.. how long do you think that business will last?

I tell you what will happen.. enterprising people being who they are will spit themselves out of that system and want to start re-organizing according to the traditional decision making hierarchy because they are tired of being limited by the less educated and less motivated.



edit on 23-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join