Is Obama a Socialist?

[Lion]

So FDR's first year in office he
*became President of two major American auto manufacturers?

I wasn't going to address this, but since you brought it up again to affirm your point, I feel it prudent to clarify this.

Obama is not the president of GM and Chrysler. The CEO of GM is Whitacre while the CEO of Chrysler is Marchionne.

The federal governments of Canada and US, and the Provincial government of Ontario have loaned the two companies money in order to restructure themselves, and remain viable. It is unfair that a large company gets the advantage of public funds, while a small business does not. But the issue at hand here is that millions of families would be affected if just these two companies fail. Downside to pure, unadulterated capitalism is that if an industry leader fails, the public suffers. Between the choice of hundreds of thousands of people becoming unemployed overnight, worsening the whole housing mess even further, and loaning money to these companies with public funds (which they have to return), I choose jobs. You may disagree, which is fine. What you can not state though, is that Obama is the president of these two companies. Without government loans, there would be no GM, no Chrysler today. Tax payers are shareholders of the company. Obama cannot become president of a company by using tax payers money.

*he lead America to a single payer healthcare system?

Again, no he didn't. I wish people really informed themselves with what was included in the bill. There is no death panels, no conspiracy to become the Soviets, and no single payer healthcare system.

Single payer is what we have in Canada. Public Option which was what the Dems were trying to push until Liberman demanded it's removal, was a system to offered an alternative to private healthcare for those who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.

*he seized control in massive land grabs?

The federal government buying more land is socialist? The 14 sites were selected designated to protect National landscapes. There are tons of federal and state parks that aren't considered land grabs when they were first proposed, so why is this? I visisted the Adirondacks, and fell in love with the place. Gas stations made money by me fueling up, the local bar made money when I ate there. There were boat tours, and a vast number of services offered to tourists. Economic activity was not depressed.

And this land belongs to the government, your government. Not Obama, so when a Republican gets into office, it still belongs to the government. Democratic government or Republican government.


Bah...not going to address all the points. I don't want to write a book.

[Canyon]

Of course Barak Obama is a socialist. His entire history, politics, etc lead one that direction I remember a quote, which I wish I could find but can only remember part of where he said "make no mistake, I am a progressive." He said it somewhere on the west coast, after his comments about Pennsylvanians. Progressive is a word often used if "Liberal" or "Socialist" (yes I am aware there are minor differences between them, but they are generally similar) will drive away votes. I am only dissapointed, that in American Politics, people misrepresent themselves to get votes. There are honesty and integrety issues here and I wonder who is truthful. One of the leaders of the Democrats, Nancy Peloci, recently said something to the effect of "you say a lot of things on the campaign trail." And on that point, I'm dissapointed in all politicians and parties who say what are effectively lies.

[steelish]

I wasn't going to address this, but since you brought it up again to affirm your point, I feel it prudent to clarify this.

Obama is not the president of GM and Chrysler. The CEO of GM is Whitacre while the CEO of Chrysler is Marchionne.

But he is their boss.

Again, no he didn't. I wish people really informed themselves with what was included in the bill. There is no death panels, no conspiracy to become the Soviets, and no single payer healthcare system.

Single payer is what we have in Canada. Public Option which was what the Dems were trying to push until Liberman demanded it's removal, was a system to offered an alternative to private healthcare for those who otherwise wouldn't have access to it.

So you didn't watch this entire video?

The federal government buying more land is socialist? The 14 sites were selected designated to protect National landscapes. There are tons of federal and state parks that aren't considered land grabs when they were first proposed, so why is this? I visisted the Adirondacks, and fell in love with the place. Gas stations made money by me fueling up, the local bar made money when I ate there. There were boat tours, and a vast number of services offered to tourists. Economic activity was not depressed.

And this land belongs to the government, your government. Not Obama, so when a Republican gets into office, it still belongs to the government. Democratic government or Republican government.


Bah...not going to address all the points. I don't want to write a book.

And you are unaware of what I am referring to. I am not talking about undeveloped land to be set aside as National Parks. Here is an article written June 2009:

The nation took a step closer to the largest federal land grab in the nation’s history last week, according to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).

That’s thanks to passage of the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In basic terms the CRWA (S. 787) would grant the federal government authority of all water – both navigable, which it now presides over, as well as non-navigable.

Without defining and confining federal authority to navigable waters, an NCBA spokesman said, “…the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels – essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches – potentially even ground water – under the regulatory strong-arm of the federal government.”

Though the bill was amended last week, NCBA officials explain, “The amendment is a smoke screen that allegedly takes care of agricultural concerns by exempting prior-converted croplands from federal jurisdiction. Cattle are generally not grazed on prior-converted croplands, so this amendment does nothing to mitigate the potential damage to livestock production from this legislation. The amendment is a diversion from the real issue, which is the removal of the word ‘navigable’ from the definition of waters.”

NCBA and Public Lands Council oppose the legislation because it obviously infringes on private property rights, but also because it limits the state partnerships and flexibility that have made the current Clean Water Act successful.