Rick Perry: Absolutely I think Barack Obama is a socialist

It’s been a long long time since we’ve had someone who did belong there occupy it.

For the most part, the same goes for Congress.

One of the things I liked about McCain is that he appeared to be civil and, at least personally, didn’t reduce the intelligence of the public debate.

Perry is definitely not McCain.

Charity and entitlement are two very different concepts. One comes from God, the other from man.

As for the poll, I voted yes, based on his actions, his proposals, his rhetoric, and the political company he has kept for decades.

I think more strictly speaking we can judge his administration as fascist. Most industries have at least officially remained private in ownership, but have come increasingly under government control. That’s fascism.

Of course the term, is politically loaded because it is primarily associated themselves with Nazis in the public mind, which is kind of ironic since the Nazis called themselves socialists.

Disecting particular political labels can be useful, but it can also obscure the reality. Like the silly idea that Hitler and Stalin were on opposite sides of the political spectrum- Hitler on the far “right” and Stalin on the far “left”. The reality is that they shared far more in common- brutality, ego, ruthlessness, and a lust for power.

Call him a socialist, a fascist, a communist or a democrat. The bottom line is his actions clearly demonstrate a vision of a totalitarian state.

Pax Christi

I wonder, if in some cases at least government has come to be under control by corporations such as GE rather than government controlling them.

There is no doubt that there is “cross-pollination” between big government and big business.

Both parties have strong interests in increasing control over citizens and elimination of possible competition from small business/local government/etc.

It took me a long time to figure out how so many businesses could support anti-business legislation and regulation.

The big business can afford the cost of compliance with burdensome regulations. It is the small business that can not. When the small business declines in market share or goes under all together, the big business makes up for the cost of the regulations and then some. They also use lobbying and outright bribes to avoid compliance all together in some cases.

So yes, big business does have very big say in big government, and big government has a very big say in big business.


Yes, Clinton mostly stood on the sidelines. I think you’re missing the point: government does not grow the pie. Government can prevent the pie from growing - e.g. Obama. It is the private sector that grows the pie. The govt. can keep useless regulations and high taxation -favorites of liberal Democrats- from stifling economic growth. That is why Obama’s “jobs programs” are a joke. The only jobs program that will work is when the private sector thinks the coast is clear to invest and take on risks. While Obama is president I don’t think this will happen. I skipped Bush? Which one? Bush 1 raised taxes, and he had a Democrat controlled congress didn’t he? Bush 2 presided over economic growth and job creation but he also spent too much and didn’t do enough to prevent Barney Frank and Chris Dodd (both Democrats) from helping create the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

How is it that Gingrich helped the pie grow but today’s congress is quadriplegic? I don’t know, ask Harry Reid. He is in control of the senate.

The healthcare pie will grow when tort reform is passed (among other reforms), and when new jobs are created in a growing economy that offer health benefits.

I totally believe that socialist principles were drummed into you at Catholic school. Many of my teachers in the catholic schools were hopeless socialists. Why do you conflate charity with socialism? Socialism creates more misery and poverty. What’s charitable about creating more misery and poverty? Is that “catholic” ?

It is possible to grow the economy so that more people can benefit. All good does not come from the government.


Democrat Party 1935: " the only thing we have to fear is fear itself "

Democrat Party 2011: " the only thing we have to offer is fear itself "

I find this very interesting as it relates to the thread. While from the tone of your post, I think it’s meant as a political jab (you aren’t endorsing the Democratic party of '35 or '11), I think it is important to look at the comparison in a serious manner.

When one does so, I think it can been seen that Obama is not a break from the tradition of FDR. He is the natural progression.

I’ve know many people who think it’s the end of the Republic if Obama wins a second term. I’ve also heard various stories about half of the US population in the 30s thinking FDR wanted to be dictator for life. Look into the courtpacking scheme and the wholesale destruction of constitutional restraint under FDR. His rule was as much about fear and control as Obama’s.

Pax Christi

Of course Obama’s a socialist. He is also pro-democracy. How could anyone justify a different answer? None of the negatives posted so far are convincing. Just remember, a democracy, without permanent and uncompromising rights to life, liberty, and property for all citizens, is just as tyrannous and murderous as any dictatorship that has ever existed.

There are ways of growing the size of the pie so that there is plenty for everyone.

In summary:

Free Market Economics.

Free and Open Competition.

Small Government … the idea of subsidiary … which is a basic Catholic tenet.

Rejecting the seven deadly sins [such as envy; and acknowledging that if someone is very smart and gets rewarded by the marketplace, that it is not the job of government to take that success away.]

Original Intent of the Constitution [and the Declaration of Independence] [and the Federalist Papers] [which means rolling back the Herbert Hoover & Franklin Delano Roosevelt “alphabet agencies”] [abandonment of the idea of “one size fits all”]

Abolition of crony capitalism / crony socialism / crony tribalism / crony anything in government.

Limiting total government spending to actual tax collections … and limiting total government taxation to a maximum total of 20% of GDP.

Maintaining military spending at 5% of GDP [because when defense spending goes below that, we get attacked.]

Turning over most current Federal government functions over to the state governments, unless stipulated in the Constitution.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment [which would restore a measure of counterbalancing the tendency for an expansive central government with the states and regional concerns]

Use of carbon-based energy. For two hundred years, prosperity has been available to everyone … and all of it based on a carbon based energy. Except for Sweden which has abundant hydro power. And Iceland which has geothermal power. And just of recent vintage, France which made a decision to use nuclear power for almost all of its electric generation.

Use of the scientific method … telling the truth and using real data in real experiments … not using the Lysenko method, which is making politically correct stuff up.

I think that I did not imply that socialists don’t have the knowledge to grow the economy.

I raised the fact that socialists DO NOT have the knowledge … an outright statement.

I DID raise the spectre …the question … that socialists DO PREFER a small and shrinking economy because it allows socialists to control the allocation of resources, because they believe they are smarter than everyone else. AND more compassionate than everyone else. AND when that doesn’t work out and people protest, then, as we have seen from actual experience in other countries, then the socialists resort to violence against the people to enforce their dictates.

So, we have documentation in the “Black Book of Communism”. When socialism fails and the bureaucrats are forced to either use force and terrorism or to quit the government, which they never do.

The model for socialists is Zimbabwe. A former European-style, more or less free market economy that was turned over to advocates of tribal cronyism and socialism … and created an environment of equal opportunity crony starvation.

 Did YOU vote for the "civil" McCain then? One of the things that nauseated me about Juan McCain was that he refused to expose Obama for the radical internationalist leftist that he is. His ties with terrorists and America haters throughout his life went uncommented upon. He made people feel good and comfortable about voting for the man who is now ruining America.
 The truth may hurt, but sober reality in 2008 may have prevented this calamity, and McCain wasn't up to the task. :ouch: Rob
  Obama may be for *democracy* (mob rule), but as with all people who believe in big government sovereignty, the principle of one man, one vote, one time is a worthy means to an end. :bowdown2: Rob

Scary thought isn’t it.

As far as the OP, thats been swimming around the minds of many Americans, and verbalized by many others for years with Obama. I see nothing new with Rick Perrys statement, except the fact as a Presidential candidate he spoke on it.

Speaking as a non-American whose academic life revolves around politics, I can assure you that Obama is certainly no socialist. He may believe in some socialism in society, but just about every single person believes in a little bit of socialism in society. However, that does not make one a socialist

It’s ok, I understand. I wouldn’t want to be called a socialist either if I were one.

I’d add that when someone calls another person a socialist, their is an inherent understanding that they subscribe to socialist views dealing with the central form of government. Not the local police force.

He’s not. America does not have any real prominent socialist political leader. Every other Western country does, and that is why those of us that are politically savvy understand that Obama is not a socialist

I’m not sure how politically savvy you are if you don’t know that calling yourself a socialist in our country while running for President would be like telling the McDonalds manager that Burger King is better during a job interview.

In other words, if Obama would have ran as a socialist, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS.

Geez, what are they teaching you Canadians about basic American politics these days?

Actually, I’m extremely well-versed. By the way, I didn’t say anything pertaining to not understanding why America doesn’t have a socialist voice, so I don’t know what it is you’re trying to say to me

I’m saying that a socialist running for President in this country can not run as a socialist. Therefore, ignoring what Obama’s said that he would like to do and saying that he’s not a socialist because of what he has done is extremely naive.

Obama has flat out said that our constitution is flawed because it does not list the things that government should do for the people, on behalf of the people. Since those words, he has flat out listed what he would like to see happen in this country and they are purely socialist ideas. Things that would only happen in a socialist country, not this one.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.