Is Obama a Socialist?

[DuncanONeil]

Don't forget those that vote both sides of an issue!
Example;

• Congress passed a measure to build a fence on the southern border, I believe by a large margin.
• Yet when it came time to vote the funds to build the fence it failed!

What are the chances that those that voted for the fence and against the money used those votes to gain support from differing groups of people?

Hard to argue. Incumbents rig it for themselves of course. Amending their remarks to sound better than they did on the debate floor, voting present, so they do not have to earn their pay and make a decision (or not be identified by a voting history for what they are), like they were elected to. Managing to sound as conservative, and reasonable as possible on the re-election trail, pretending that they are trustworthy. If we are fooled, its our own fault.

The only thing that matters to me about an incumbent, or someone with past political office running for another, is his history, not his speeches and promises. Even if he changes positions, to get my vote, he has to show me why (I do allow people to grow and change. but if they want my vote, then they can tell me why.), and have time before the election to actually attempt to implement his new view (example: if you go from pro choice to pro life, propose or vote for something pro life). Any thing less than that and I suspect its one of those flip-flops often used to get a vote, prior to the inevitable flop-flip back after the election.

[MMI]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....

[DuncanONeil]

Is Obama a Socialist?

I do hope so ....

Why!?!?

Besides where has socialism not failed?

[leo9]

Besides where has socialism not failed?

NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[denuseri]

The United States? Great Brittan?.um..France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China,??/ ...the list goes on and on and on.

All these countries and more use socialism to one extent or another and have been for many many many generations.

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

[denuseri]

Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[MMI]

It is my perception that the centre has moved some way to the right in recent decades from where it used to be. It's not hard right, so as to include movements like Aryan Nations or the KKK, but it does enable the Democrats to claim to be liberals ... Only in America - lol, and here we witness the inglorious spectacle of a leftwards-leaning party prostituting itself with the Tories just so that it can get a taste of power.

Does anyone disagree with the term "prostituting itself" concerning what the Liberals are doing?

Obama's a Democrat ...perhaps he had no better option when he decided what his politics were, but I would expect him to stand well to the right of the most "moderate" social democratic party. With significant public shareholdiongs in the US banking system, and the timid beginnings of a public health service, there are hopeful signs to be seen.

[denuseri]

Well from one thing I read he was a member of the social democrat party here in the states at one time too.

And speaking from an academic perspective...generally speaking: all governments have a natural tendency to move towards the right over time so as to solidify their control over the populace and then experience eaither revolution or reform to different degrees depending upon various circumstances where in some of that power is temporaraly relinquished or redacted or the illusion of it redirected..

[Cathryn Blackthorne]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

[MMI]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

Not really ... in fact, now I think about it, it doesn't matter at all.

What shall we talk about now?

[leo9]

Prior to the vote on the health care takeover some 70% of the people were opposed to passage of the bill as written. That is a significant number!! Totally ignored!

But presumably you don't think it a bad thing that the military occupations continue when 70% of the people want them ended. (Including a lot of people who voted for Obama on a promise to bring the troops home.)

[leo9]

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

Outside of such wild cases as the American frontier and Pol Pot's Cambodia, there has never been a purely capitalist or purely socialist economy. And those cases didn't last long and only survived by drawing on the mixed economies beyond their borders.

The US has never been as purely capitalist as it likes to claim, any more than China is as purely socialist as it pretends. All successful economies are a mix of state provision and private enterprise: the argument is over the best balance, which depends on the circumstances and can't be decided by pure theory or ideology.

Most economists agree that our present troubles come from the US and its client economies tilting way too far on the side of unregulated capitalism, and needing a good dose of state control to right the balance. There have been other times when economies have failed through too much socialism (Wilson's UK is an arguable example), but we are very far from that today.

[steelish]

But presumably you don't think it a bad thing that the military occupations continue when 70% of the people want them ended. (Including a lot of people who voted for Obama on a promise to bring the troops home.)

And many people are still angry with him over that as well. Obama is great at slight-of-hand and getting people (the media, actually) to focus on one thing while he's doing another. So...he took the focus off bringing home the troops and placed it upon the "Stimulus Package". When that didn't really pan out the way it was intended - because let's face it, things have gotten worse - he took the focus off that and concentrated on the Health Care Bill regardless of everything else that needed his attention.

[steelish]

BTW - Just because mainstream media doesn't report the anger of the voters in regards to any given "Obama-ism" doesn't mean it isn't there. I highly anyone in another country can know exactly how frustrated and irritated most Americans are with almost ALL of Obama's moves so far unless they live here. However, it's starting to be shown in the polls.

[steelish]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

It actually does matter. He stated five days before he was elected that "We are five days away from FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"

Into what?
Why does it need to be "transformed"?

[denuseri]

Frustration over his breaking of campaign promises and many of the other moves he has made since in office however in reality has only a small part to do with his closeted socialist standing or expressed political views so much as his actual deeds in comparrison to unmet public expectations.

Kinda like the anticipation of a long awaited movie being far greater than the movie itself.

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

Most people who rise to power have the same wishes or wish to apear too.

Now that he is in power however the reality that said power is actualy quite limited (even when one has a majority in both houses and the high court behind them (or soon to be).

Additonally, with things like the war to control the rescources of the middle east for global corperate masters (who are really in charge), shrouded under the viel of Rome protecting its empire from the barbarians at the gates er oh Im sorry I mean the USA and the rest of the free world working as equals to stop the threat of terrorism...(though it could be a two birds with one stone thing I suppose) he has pretty much followed the play book drawn up for him by other more knowledgable individuals before him such as Rumsfield and Chenney that was left conviently in place amongst all the executive branches for defence and intell staff/agencies from which he was briefed as to the real deal when he took office. Something Ive been told is a wake up call like no other for a new president ellect.

After all we cant have the newly elected kid on the block "figure head" striking out into new ground where it really matters to the real powers behind the throne now can we?

When you look at what he has done conserning health care and imigration and other areas along with the war and foriegn relations you start to see what kind of short leash the corperate powers that be have their new man in washington on.

And thats got very little to do with political orientations of theoretical dogmas, so much as the hard realities of supply, demand, and economic control.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

[steelish]

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

True. But the thing he wants to "fix" is the Constitution, and by changing that, he changes America. He freely admits that he sought out the Marxists and radicals while in college. Now he is in a position to "create" the kind of world he wants.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.

Not necessarily. Free market capitalism relies upon the fellow man. You get by on your merits and quality of your goods in a free market capitalist society. In a socialist society, much of what you rely upon for living is "purchased" from the government or doled out by the government.

[denuseri]

They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

[steelish]

They are both dependent upon the same type of exchange (this for that)...which when one gets down to it is no different than the barter system in reality.

Sorry, I have to disagree. In a free market, you purchase from a retailer or merchant and in turn, that merchant or retailer spends the money they receive and the market grows and prospers. If they provide poor service or the quality of product is poor, their business suffers as a result and the market ebbs and flows naturally. In socialism, when the government is full of entitlement programs and provides and/or sells much of what the "consumer" needs, the money does not flow through the market, nor is there any consequence to the government for poor service or a poor quality product. It's almost a one-way street. Remember the lines for food in Russia?

[steelish]

Besides, in a barter system you exchange something of value for something that you view to be of equal value. The government can demand whatever value (cost) they want for whatever the deem to bestow upon their citizens.

[denuseri]

And in those cases that you so eloquently pointed out: a service provider fails to provide sufficently for the demand (government controled or otherwise)...those doing the demanding go elsewhere (as they did to the blackmarket in russia)....hence its still econmoics 101 hard at work.

Its the difference between theory and reality.

[steelish]

Here's an unbiased opinion posted by a political scientist. I quite enjoyed reading it.

[MMI]

Free market capitalism relies upon the fellow man. You get by on your merits and quality of your goods in a free market capitalist society.

You get by if you have capital and you fail if you don't. Merit? Quality? Don't make me laugh.

And Michael Martine's activities mark him out as a capitalist, not as an "unbiased political scientist".

[DuncanONeil]

Since the question was about socialist countries I will I will ignore all comments regarding the current and preceding US administrations. That is rightfully a completely different subject.

A current list of socialist countries contains 27 that were formerly socialist. obviously they have all failed!
As to currently socialist there appear to be none. A listing contains five but four of the five are also identified as communist. Since communism is the result of a failed socialist state QED socialist states have failed. The single state listed as socialist and not communist is North Korea. It is, or should be clear, to most everyone that there is no way that North Korea can be listed among the successful states.
Even your own words; "(M)ost European nations, at one time or another.", support the contention that socialism fails!

NOT failed? Well, most European nations, at one time or another. And Canada, India, Vietnam (once they finally won the right to choose it) and dare I mention China?

Only in America could a politician be called a socialist - like it's a bad thing - for pursuing moderately right-of-centre policies that have been the norm for decades in the rest of the developed world. He looks strange to you because you're used to the "centre" being what most other countries consider the hard right. And he was elected, in case you hadn't noticed, because unregulated free-market capitalism had failed.

(Yes, we all know that the plan was for the crash to happen *after* W left office, so he could blame it on the Dems. But the fact that he couldn't even engineer an economic disaster right is why they lost.)

[DuncanONeil]

The simple definition of socialism is "state ownership of industry" such has not been the case in modern nation states.
Further social programs in a capitalist state does not make the country socialist.
Further I would have to take the position that a pure system of politics, which is likely to never occur, is also like not a good thing. However, a system that rewards the person for effort is immeasurably better than one that tries to make everyone the same regardless of effort. With no reward for effort all you produce is mediocrity.

The United States? Great Brittan?.um..France, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China,??/ ...the list goes on and on and on.

All these countries and more use socialism to one extent or another and have been for many many many generations.

At least in so far as I understand Socialism to be its proven above board to be more sucesful than pure capitalism ever has.

[DuncanONeil]

Us politicians only campaign to the middle. Once in office they do damn well as they please. Like and of the landed gentry of the middle ages.

Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[DuncanONeil]

the US electorate is composed of 15% liberal, 29% moderates, 34% conservative, and most dangerous of all 16% progressive.
This makes the split 31 - 34. Therefore campaigns are directed at, and rest on the shoulders of the 29% moderate. (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/11/halpin-teixeria-progressive-study/)

Oh and fyi the typical moderate or center platform as its sometimes called during US political debates is no where near the hard anything of even the most left or right wing governments by eaither US, European, or any other contemporary political standards, nor by academic measurment systems that do not follow coloquial politically assigned values to my knowledge. (Reds vs Whites etc)

[DuncanONeil]

"Is Obama a socialist?"

Pardon me if this question is naïve but, does it matter? And if so, why?

It matters because such a progrom would destroy the USA!

[DuncanONeil]

"Do you think the U.S. is doing the right thing by fighting the war in Afghanistan now, or should the U.S. not be involved in Afghanistan now?"

Doing the
right thing Should not
be involved Unsure
% % %
4/14-19/10 56 36 8

"Do you think eliminating the threat from terrorists operating from Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal for American troops to fight and possibly die for or not?"

Is
worthwhile Is not
worthwhile Unsure
% % %
4/14-19/10 61 31 8
(http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm)

The most recent data I can find that includes Iraq is a war on terror poll. This poll has 42% say we are winning, 25% - losing, and 26% think it is a draw.(http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/war_on_terror_update)

Hence I can not find support for you claim!

But presumably you don't think it a bad thing that the military occupations continue when 70% of the people want them ended. (Including a lot of people who voted for Obama on a promise to bring the troops home.)

[DuncanONeil]

Nothing closeted about it! He has been very clear in his beliefs.
Calling him socialist is actually being nice. There is evidence that he is more progressive than socialist. And as hard as it may be to believe they are worse than socialists.

Frustration over his breaking of campaign promises and many of the other moves he has made since in office however in reality has only a small part to do with his closeted socialist standing or expressed political views so much as his actual deeds in comparrison to unmet public expectations.

Kinda like the anticipation of a long awaited movie being far greater than the movie itself.

Yes he is wanting the change some things in America, and fix things he sees as wrong. At least he presents himself with such noble intentions.

Most people who rise to power have the same wishes or wish to apear too.

Now that he is in power however the reality that said power is actualy quite limited (even when one has a majority in both houses and the high court behind them (or soon to be).

Additonally, with things like the war to control the rescources of the middle east for global corperate masters (who are really in charge), shrouded under the viel of Rome protecting its empire from the barbarians at the gates er oh Im sorry I mean the USA and the rest of the free world working as equals to stop the threat of terrorism...(though it could be a two birds with one stone thing I suppose) he has pretty much followed the play book drawn up for him by other more knowledgable individuals before him such as Rumsfield and Chenney that was left conviently in place amongst all the executive branches for defence and intell staff/agencies from which he was briefed as to the real deal when he took office. Something Ive been told is a wake up call like no other for a new president ellect.

After all we cant have the newly elected kid on the block "figure head" striking out into new ground where it really matters to the real powers behind the throne now can we?

When you look at what he has done conserning health care and imigration and other areas along with the war and foriegn relations you start to see what kind of short leash the corperate powers that be have their new man in washington on.

And thats got very little to do with political orientations of theoretical dogmas, so much as the hard realities of supply, demand, and economic control.

Captialism is practiced by everyone weather they think they are practicing it or not everywhere on the globe for the most part. Free market capitalism and socialism are just two sides of the capitalism coin imho.