Obama and the Socialist Ideal

Is Obama a "socialist?" Yep.

Are McCain/Rush/Hannity/Bush/Cheney, etc. fascists? Hell yes!

Mussolini said a more appropriate term for fascism was "corporatism," with corporations and the state getting in bed with each other for mutual benefit. Nowhere is this concept more evident than in the love affair so-called "conservatives" have for the oil industry and the military industrial complex, specifically defense contractors. You think it's "conservative" to funnel billions of tax dollars to well-connected oil cronies and war profiteers? You think by repeatedly using the words "free market" you can convince people you believe in the notion? Ha! You think unlimited executive power is a "conservative" ideal? You guys don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

I consider myself a libertarian (which, as you'll remember, Reagan called "the heart of conservatism"). People like me used to be the "base" of the Republican party until some political genius decided evangelicals were more likely to be reliable dupes. Crowing about gay marriage and abortion is a lot easier than actually limiting the power of government, right? Plus, as it turns out, having control of the government is fun! And who wants to limit fun?

Am I voting for Obama? No. The idea of big government doesn't sit well with me. Am I voting for McCain? NO! The idea of big INTRUSIVE government really doesn't sit well with me. Another poster asked whether it would be better to live under socialism or fascism. I'd personally choose neither, but if there were no other choice I'd go with socialism every time. There's more of a "slow-burn" in reaching the death camp stage. With fascism, it tends to arrive much quicker...

reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock

All that aside, free health care sounds great. But where is the funding from that going to come from? My taxes?

Well......If Obama is the POTUS......think of all the money he can save us by not bombing the other side of the world for 8 years. I bet a couple hundred BILLION would do it.

reply to post by jetxnet

It was good before the Dems got control.

UUhhhhhhh?????

I don't remember that. Refresh my memory.

Was it the BS war under false pretense?
Or, I know.....waaaaaaaaayyyyyy back.....when Enron stock was poppin?

You are wrong. Simple statements get simple responses.

reply to post by djerwulfe


Excellent post. I completely concur. I planned on voting for Obama if Hillary didn't win, but the more I researched Obama's positions, and read the things that he was saying, I realized that he is not ready to be potus, that he is far too idealist, and seems to have no regard for the working class, especially the working poor that are struggling to improve their lot in life.

True liberalism provides opportunity for all, not just a helping hand for those at the very bottom. The real message should be work hard, develop skills, and you can succeed in the U.S., not work the system and learn to play the game and you can be rich. This seems to be Obama's view, and GW's I might add. Obama's plan clearly calls for an expansion of the welfare state. While working people and the middle class are left out of Obama's plan, their benefits decreasing as their incomes increase, Obama wants to provide those not earning income all that they need to get by, which only encourages them not to work. McCain plans on giving the same benefits to everyone, and that is how it should be.

While Obama calls for an end to the war in Iraq, he also calls for this massive increase in world wide charity. World charity given to the U.N.! Sorry, but a majority of the governments represented in the U.N. are oppressive regimes, and they will use the money they get from the U.S. to further their control over the nations they rule. Our charity money will mainly go for weapons, and the next thing you know, Obama will foolishly get us into a war in Africa.

McCains position on the Iraq war is the best position. Tell the enemy that we are willing to fight for a hundred years, and you will take away his hope for victory, and are far more likely to lead him to the bargaining table, especially with our military supremacy. Tell you enemy you will withdraw as soon as possible as Obama is doing, and all you are doing is encouraging our enemies to fight harder. Not very smart. Like it or not, it looks like the surge has worked, and leaving Iraq with a strong representative government will be worth the investment in the long term. Right now it looks like we could succeed in Iraq, which I never thought possible. This would be a major victory for the U.S., democracy, and peace in the Middle East.

McCain is not GW, and I get tired of hearing this, especially since all who make that claim fail to provide the evidenc to back up their statements. Being that GW has had most of his bills passed, most democrats have voted with GW, so McCain voting with GW 87% of the time doesn't mean much. McCain voting against GW 13% of the time is more significant.

Bush has been selling America to the Chinese Communist Party, and the Saudis. They have been quietly, and slowly buying America from Bush administration traitors. 'American' corporations do not server America; They serve traitorous executives at the behest of foreign interests.

We need to tax these people, and corporations to reclaim American sovereignty. We need to tell foreign countries that America will server her own citizens. They may call it socialism, but it is only Americans reclaiming their resources, and sovereignty.

The US pays for much of the world's medical research, while other countries get a free ride. Many of the war profiteers, not to mention the debt holders are foreign interests. Do not be fooled by false labels of socialism.

reply to post by crontab


Obama is not going to do anything about the selling of the U.S.. Obama wants to obligate a percentage our GDP to world wide charities. Obama isn't going to stand up for labor, us workers are all a bunch of gun toting, bible thumping, bigots according to Obama. Obama's loyalty to Africa, as the church he goes to openly states, which does not bode well for helping the U.S. keep its sovereignty, or keeping foreign countries and investors from buying our country from us to pay for the huge debts of the Reagan/Bush admins..

If you want to elect someone who will stand for keeping our nations independence, McCain would by far be the better candidate to vote for.

reply to post by poet1b

If you want to elect someone who will stand for keeping our nations independence, McCain would by far be the better candidate to vote for.

Ha!

Amazing you can go from Hillary to McCain, even though Obama is much more similar in policies to her. Pray tell why...

And this above statement is a joke. Tell me, do you also like the 'independence' that the US has received over the past 7 years? We have veered off in a twisted direction because of this fool named Bush, and are now the most hated country in the world. McCain will continue this ruckus and lower the US's reputation even further, all in the hopes of keeping the US 'independent'.

Obama on the other hand is loved by people overseas and, if elected, would be a drastic step in the right direction to reestablish our place back into the world, WITHOUT taking away our 'independence'.

How does someone switch from their candidate to someone completely opposite of them, instead of going for the next most similar? I don't get it...unless it's a spite move.

So tell me, Poet, what's going on?

reply to post by bigbert81


I have thought highly of McCain since the 2000 election. He has been the repub I could support since then. While McCain has moved to the right to court the right, he is not GW, that is a myth spread by Obama supporters at every turn. Hillary's policies were considerably more moderate than Obama's. I have never thought that they were that close idealistically, only a part of the same party. Obama is left extreme just as GW is right extreme. I see Obama as more like GW than any of the other candidates, kind of the flip side of the same coin.

reply to post by poet1b


Poet, you are thinking down the wrong path here.

Firstly, why did you like McCain back in 2000? I actually did too, but McCain now is TOTALLY different than McCain back then. TOTALLY. In fact, everything that made McCain so unique back then has disappeared as of recent.

And it's not the Obama camp that's spreading the rumors of McCain and Bush being identical, it's McCain. 2 years ago McCain averaged voting with Bush 89% of the time. Last year, 95%. This year 100%. Go ahead, check his voting records. Also, all the flip-flopping he's been doing recently has destroyed his 'Maverick' label, and once again sides him with Bush.

Go ahead, check the issues, then tell me who really IS most like Bush.

reply to post by crontab


Isolation is no longer an option. The only American owned companies not floundering right now are those with significant global interests.

I'm afraid that warfare between major powers is now conducted through the market.
I'm not sure that it's accurate to lump the US relationship with Saudi Arabia in with the US-China arrangement.

In Market warfare, China has declared "war" on the US. And Russia is aligned to the Chinese.
The Saudi Arabians are our guys. We don't compete with Saudi Arabia. We compete with China. If anyone is selling anything it's the American consumer forever demanding "more for less!"

Recently, the US DID get caught with its pants down. That doesn't happen too often. We put our faith in the idea that the powerful industrialized nations would ultimatley back the US for purposes of achieving a stronger, vibrant and peaceful global economy. We screwed up. And we will pay.

But then so will our antagonists.
The next few years will see an overhaul in US foreign and doestic policy. The Feds will relinquish their petty, meddling in regional social affairs and concentrate their energies where they are supposed to. That is on International and Interstate operations. No more Federally mandated social reforms handed down from on high as blanket policy for every state without any regard for the specific characteristics of the diverse and geographically distal communities that comprise the USA.
Time for States and Regions to take responsibility.
Special interest lobbyists will find their jobs more difficult.

It is not wise to cross the US, particularly without some type of warning or declaration of intent. We are already responding at a suprising rate.

I just think your view is over simplified, I guess. We have made many concessions to bring developing nations on line. We make trade deals to further capitalism and democratic republic government.
We have found through experience that the "fairest" mode of government is regulated competition. Once the rules are agreed upon, it's every man for himself. Or should be.
I guess I lost my train of thought... sorry....

reply to post by poet1b


Ditto. Your assessment of the current situation is, IMO, spot on.
I sincerely wanted Obama, but he just isn't the guy for this job. If he gets elected under these circumstances, I think it might be a real setback for anyone who isn't an old white guy wishing to run for president.

Things will get tough soon, and if Obama is Pres. many people will, erroneoulsy, blame much of the trouble on him!

This may be further exacerbated by idealistic, and impractical policies.
No Jimmy Carter needed right now. He would be eaten alive.

There is a pattern. GOP put GW in becasue they knew that the radical Islam situation would come to a head in the 2000-2008 time frame. They needed a fall guy, basically, and GW stepped up. That whole crew was assembled precisely to do the job they have done. None of those guys care! They're not Politicians. They're Economic engineers. except GW. he's just the kid who had the balls to be the public face of the Feds while they did a bunch of necessary, but antisocial and predictably unpopular things.

When the current economic "coup," if you will, enacted by the former communist states was enacted, the GOP made Guiliani quit. And brought in McCain.
Again, the Republican ticket is hand picked for the job ahead. That is ,aggressive reforms, cutting of a bunch of Federal programs that will have many people whining and moaning, but you can't take people's hard earned money and give it to useless people. With US profits and surpluses down, the cost of our US brand of socialism, (yes, we are socialist now) will become painfully obvious to those who don't understand where ALL that money goes! They'll really be wondering. Taxes cannot be raised in this situation. Charity without a tangible and measurable positive, progressive impact and rule is out of the question. Or should be.

The "flavor-of-the-week-modish-cause-hipster-activist" stuff will end. The dire consequences of going into places, extending services and aid, and then pulling out when the fickle, short-term-memory-loss American public loses interest has become quantified and conclusive.

If you vaccinate children against childhood illnesses in regions without the resources to support the population growth you just exponentially increased, all you end up with is bunch of starving, desperate, diseased adults! How does that Help!!??

reply to post by bigbert81


I liked McCain in 2000 for probably the same reason you did. Heck Kerry considered him as a VEEP choice. I think McCain is a pragmatist, I thought that back then, and I still think that way.

As I have explained several times now, I think McCain has moved to the right to court the vote, but will govern from the middle. I don't think McCain has changed, he is just being a politician.

Here's an interesting article on Obama from today.

online.wsj.com...

Bushes Third Term

"We're beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of "George Bush's third term." Maybe he's worried that someone will notice that he's the candidate who's running for it."

"Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn't merely "running to the center." He's fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he's embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush's policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?"

When people talk about Obama's not having thought things through, here is a good example. Here is his statement on the mortgage crisis.

www.issues2000.org...

"Help the homeowners actually living in their homes
It is important to make sure that we're not helping out the speculators, but instead are helping out the homeowners who are actually living in their homes, who have the capacity to make the payments if they're not seeing a huge increase in their mortgage payments. But understand this, this is not new. We have a history in this country of preying on low-income peoples because they don't have access to banks. The Community Reinvestment Act is oftentimes not enforced as it should be. We've got to open up bank branches. We've got to give people access to financing so that they're not going to a payday loan operation. I two years ago introduced a provision that would eliminate predatory lending, something that I had already helped to get passed at the state level. We've got to give ordinary working people access to financing. Part of the reason that they are borrowing on their homes, they're borrowing on credit cards, is that the banks and financial institutions have dominated policy in Washington."
Source: 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate Jan 21, 2008

He starts off talking about the mortgage crisis but ends up talking about helping people borrow even more money. That is a pretty muddy line of thought. Is the mortgage crisis really connected to people who can't make it through the week with out borrowing money on their next paycheck? Do we really want to make borrowing easier for people who can't budget from one pay period to the next? Yes, banks have too much influence in Washington, but the answer is not to expand debt.

When I read stuff like this that Obama has said, it's clear to me that he is not ready to be Potus yet.

reply to post by djerwulfe


Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement, except I don't think the GOP has their act that well together, and in general the GOP is as messed up as the DNC is. I don't think they had a master plan, Guliana just flamed out. I don't think McCain was their choice, and that he won in spite of GOP efforts to nominate someone else.

I think McCain will be the disiplinarian that we really need now. We need fiscal disipline on the budget, we need to go after abusive banking practices, wall street con games, and abuses of international corporations abroad in the name of the U.S.. We need a more practical military policy, not one that seems more tied to military contractors. We need a crack down on illegal immigration, and government assistance programs should be limited, and offer help to those who are trying to help themselves, the working poor. The GOP would rather have more of GW, a continued blind eye towards corporate abuses, and continuous war for the benefit of arms dealers, and that is not McCain.

I would like to add that I don't think that Obama is ready to be POTUS, YET, but he definitely has the potential. It takes a certain skill level to be successful as a politician, and Obama has the skill set, and the talent, but I don't think his ideas are developed well enough YET. There are some things I question about his stances, and his affiliations, but I suspect that with time he could grow into excellent POTUS material. Obama's rise has just happened too fast. He needs more time as a politician at the federal level. or as an executive position as a governor.

Right now more than most other times in our nations history, we need a President able to step into the role with a commanding ability to change our nations direction, and straighten things out after GW and his gang have messed things up so badly. McCain, I think, could do this. I also think Hillary could do this. The sad thing is that Obama's too rapid rise could wind up ruining the potential that he shows.