Is Obama a socialist? I don’t know, but much of what he says is socialistic.
“when you spread the wealth around, its good for everybody.”
“we’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?”
And this from Michelle Obama:
“The truth is, in order to get things like universal healthcare and a revamped educational system, someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” - I know she isn’t Barack Obama but she wouldn’t be spouting off on these issues without the approval of the White House.
“It is the government’s obligation to redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all.”
Is he a socialist? Look at what he says, and what he does. He seems to want to redistribute the wealth. He wants the government to control healthcare. I would say he is kind of along the lines of a circa 1970’s Euro-socialist - like a British Labor party leader. Liberal leftists always talk about everyone’s slice of the “pie”. What they can’t comprehend is the idea of the pie itself getting larger through economic growth and everyone benefitting. That is really the problem with the left: they see the economy as static, the pie as finite, and that everything must be redistributed fairly among everyone. And they appoint themselves as the redistributers - they decide who gets what. They are all about power.
Outside of America, where socialist is not considered to be a four letter word, I imagine that even Obama would label himself as a socialist.
Inside America, where the term left is not so much considered to be a four letter word, saying Obama is a leftist informs us sufficiently as to where his politics lean.
“full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.”
Also “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”
The New Party worked alongside ACORN. Obama sought the New Party’s endorsement when he ran for senate in 1996.
I don’t know if Obama is a socialist, but things that he said, groups he has been a part of, policies he has enacted as president, the admitted socialists in his administration, do elude that he is a socialist or has socialistic sympathies.
I voted “Yes,” but my qualifier is that he is using socialism to achieve his goal of destroying colonial America (we colonize the poor), so he is both more than and less than a socialist.
To my mind he is a terrible admixture of influences:
Mixed-race child of a white mother, African father
Deserted by bio father
Adopted by Indonesian Muslim step father - first religion was Islam
Deserted by mother
Raised by Communist grandparents - 2nd “religion” was Communism
Gravitated to Marxist (Communist) professors in college
Friends with terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dunn
Spent time with Frank Marshall Davis, an influential Communist
Took on "Dreams From " his father, who was a communist working for Kenya’s independence from GB (anti-colonialism)
Attended Jeremiah Wright’s “church” of black liberation “theology” = hatred of United States/Jews/Israel
I intended that to go both ways, and I was speaking generally.
People will swear up and down that he’s a socialist or he’s not a socialist, but they won’t even give what they’re saying two seconds’ thought as to why they’re saying it and what makes them say it. I suspect if people actually thought rationally about it for a few minutes, many would change their minds. But I’m not saying that the poll would be equally balanced. In fact, I believe the opposite is true.
Too many people say things in general based on what they want things to be rather than what is, and I think that’s quite simple-minded.
Exactly, they have absolutely no idea of how to make the pie larger … creating more for everyone.
In fact, just the opposite … they see their power-role as being the people who decide who gets what amount of the pie.
If the pie was enlarged to accommodate everyone, then there would be no need for any of the … redistributionists … socialists … marxists … peronists … populists … you name it.
The only real discussion is: are they incompetent to grow the pie or do they prefer a smaller pie for everyone with them having the key role of apportioning the small pie among a larger group of people.
William F. Buckley referred to our socialist nanny-staters as “shower-adjusters”.
**In 1998, American conservative commentator William F. Buckley, Jr. sarcastically called meddlesome do-gooders “the shower-adjusters of this world.” **The joke’s on him: Monday’s Citizen said: “The British government is considering regulating the maximum temperature of domestic baths.” It seems the public are too stupid not to scald themselves unless big nanny hovers over them as they bathe. While I’m inclined to think the state has no place in the bathrooms of the nation, if it’s in there bossing people around I do want to hear about it. But I’m not done with my question about all this government news. Indeed, I’ve just gotten started.
The real question is not just why government is in our faces, bathtubs and playgrounds morning noon and night, but why it is so pushy, given that it is also so incompetent. Out in Vancouver, a government-funded program is trying to give free heroin to addicts and failing. And you’re going to remake society? Oh wait. You already did.
Fifty years ago, cruelly neglected by a state that, until 1958, spent less of our GDP than those awful socialistic Americans, we might plausibly be said to stand badly in need of government help to eat at all, let alone eat a balanced diet. But since then, we’ve had a half-century of economic growth that has left every third person with an iPod dangling from their head and made lumpy tires a distant memory, and also increasingly generous retirement pensions, unemployment insurance, welfare, health care and who knows what all. Economic growth sure hasn’t made us poorer, so if we really still face a poverty crisis, the bony finger of blame points … where?
Another way of expressing it: is the economy really a zero-sum game? Meaning: if someone gains, that can only happen if somebody else loses?
OR, can the economy be a win-win situation. The economy grows and everybody gets more.
OR, as President Kennedy stated: “A rising tide lifts all boats”.
I dunno, sharing pies and looking out for the less fortunate sound pretty much like Catholic principles to me. I look at much of the stuff quoted as supportive of him being a socialist and I just think that these are principles which were drummed into me at Catholic school…
The single most salient take-away point from your post, for me, was the concept of helping the pie grow larger. I love it, and would embrace the politicians (regardless of ideology), who could help achieve this. Since you imply that socialists don’t have that knowledge, then you might want to point me in the direction of who does - and why they have so far failed to put their knowledge into action. Just saying…
Who has that knowlege? Well, for starters, Ronald Reagan, who cut taxes and presided over a period of prolongued economic growth. In the 90’s during the GOP control of congress and the purse strings, we had strong economic growth and balanced budgets (thanks Newt Gingrich). Bill Clinton had the political sense to not mess with things, probably going against his instincts - or atleast the wishes and instincts of his wife. I’m guessing that the elections of 1994 helped convince him to work with congress, sign welfare reform, etc. One wishes the current occupant of the White House would have such knowlege. Alas, his education comes not from Adam Smith but Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright. Hopefully we’ll get someone in the White House who actually knows how an economy works and expands.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Would someone please tell me, exactly what a socialist is then?
Nobody who agrees with Obama want’s Obama to be called a socialist because it immediately puts them in the same corner.
There is a crowd who believes they can pick and choose what they think are the good parts of a failed ideology and implement it without the entire ideology taking over. The camel stuck his nose in the tent somewhere around 1913 and we’ve been patting it on the nose as it inched ever so slowly inside.
So, let me get his straight, Reagan grew the pie, as did Gingrich (guess Clinton stood on the sidelines and cheered, or was too busy elsewhere to ‘interfere’) and now Obama is a know-nothing? Not fair - you skipped Bush…Also, how is it that Gingrich got the pie growing while the present Congress seems afflicted with quadriplegia? Most importantly, since health care is a pet concern of mine, did the health care slice ever grow enough to feed everyone?