The Obama Presidency : Here Comes Socialism

Now we all know that Obama is just starting out, so its a bit unfair to bash him straight away without knowing how his policies will turn out right?

Well projection and analysis are tools which enable us to envisage what will happen as a result of his policies. We may be wrong, but it is worth considering the possibilities anyhow.

The following is an excerpt from a brilliant op-ed piece by Dick Morris, former advisor to Republican senators and also to Bill Clinton. Morris is the archetypal advocate for the "third way" method of politics and economics- that is a blend of left and right wing policies.

Let's see what he has to say :

Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

...

But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

You can read the full article here.



Replaced 'quote' with 'ex' tags for external text.

Please read Posting work written by others

[edit on 23/1/09 by masqua]

Isn't a blend of left and right policies, central and balanced? In Britain we call it Liberalism, and the accusation is that it is trying to look both ways at once......

reply to post by 44soulslayer


lol I dont see why everyone is so afraid of it... I for one have no opinion either way about it, just another title for another thing I dont really need to know about.

reply to post by redled


The rubric of "liberalism" is a misnomer in my point of view.

I think the debate is between free market forces versus state intervention.

Third way systems may be "balanced" in the sense that they appear to cater to both camps, but when it comes to the personal liberties vs state control, it falls squarely into the state control camp.

reply to post by Tentickles


I'm sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that socialism isn't bad?

If so, I agree. Its not bad, its just another way of doing things.

The question is, do you want your country to be one where the majority of folks are reliant on the state as opposed to being self-reliant?

Its that question of self-sufficiency (ie sailing the waves of the free market) vs state control (forced to stay at harbour) that America must answer.

If America chooses a bigger state, then I will be unhappy but accept it as the changing tide of public opinion. It would be unconstitutional in my opinion, but in the face of a majority nothing can be done. That is democracy.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
reply to post by redled

 

The rubric of "liberalism" is a misnomer in my point of view.

I think the debate is between free market forces versus state intervention.

Third way systems may be "balanced" in the sense that they appear to cater to both camps, but when it comes to the personal liberties vs state control, it falls squarely into the state control camp.

It's more a case of melding the two. What you need to consider is that the truth is in one way like a multi sided crystal, depends how you look at it. Different people have different takes and each comes out with 'truths' and to a degree the odd bit of BS where a mate puts you straight. Political bodies of thought are the works of groups of people, even if only one summarises them. These bodies of thought in themselves are prone to be right and wrong, the point of melding them is to respect all sides of the argument and to try to tease the truths from the various bodies to develop new thought. This is exactly how science works, but politicians tend to keep out the scientists so have little grasp of the tolerance and respect required for this. The 'third way' is a misnomer (and a screen - Kundera or Vision - see my signature), there have been more than two before it, eg Feudalism. I was being slightly pedantic with 'Liberalism,' it just happens to be the middle of the three main parties in the UK parliament......

[EDIT] Clue: Chimpanzees are Fusion Fission animals, sometimes they want to be individualistic, sometimes they act as a group, like male female, they are just different sides of the same evolutionary coin.



[edit on 23/1/2009 by redled]

[edit on 23/1/2009 by redled]

Thanks for posting this.

I've always found Dick Morris to be very insightful, and more often than not, correct.

I see it happening exactly as he has described too. And this is something we've been saying here at ATS for a long time now, that once you start giving away money, it's hard to ever get back.

Once Obama transforms a large voting population of this country into welfare recipients, we may not ever be able to get them back.

Scary stuff.

Originally posted by nyk537
Thanks for posting this.

A rarity

I've always found Dick Morris to be very insightful, and more often than not, correct.

I see it happening exactly as he has described too. And this is something we've been saying here at ATS for a long time now, that once you start giving away money, it's hard to ever get back.

Once Obama transforms a large voting population of this country into welfare recipients, we may not ever be able to get them back.

Scary stuff.

This is the whole problem with New Labour and the 'Third Way,' I'm into the melding bit and wish Obama the best, but if he makes people satisfied in the short term where they are without spurring them on educationally, they will become complacent, lose their horizons and become disaffected in the long run, costing more and achieving less. Whatever the Tories say, debt is not the biggest failure (though that is huge), it is making people think they could be tax credited out of misery, whereas the only way is accomplishment.

In true mutual brown nosing sense, thanks for your post and again

[edit on 23/1/2009 by redled]

You folks sure sound like broken records....

92' Clintons a socialist!
96' Clintons a communist!
2000' Gore is very liberal!
2004' Kerry's socialist ideals are a danger to america!
2007 primaries... Clinton is too far left!
and now 2008, "Obama is a socialist idealist"

I mean seriously you fellas cannot come up with anything else other that this. I mean seriously.. And by the way look at the economic performances over the last 8years between republicans and democratic administrations and seriously explain to me whether the "fiscal responsible free market" BS holds up in comparison to the Democrats.

"socialist socialist!!" for the last few decades.... seriously are we hunting commies again? We got over that era a long time ago.

What I find ironic is that if Tax dollars are given to the poor it's socialism;
but if corporations receive tax dollars thru no bid contracts, or oil companies receive subsidies from tax dollars, it's called free Enterprise.
Corporate welfare is completely ignored.

I think it's just losers whining and tossing around labels to try and win some support for their failed polices of the past 8 years.

To be honest, something has got to give. The United States, hell the world, can't go on as is and pretend nothing has happened.

Free enterprise run amok has lead to a total disaster with a few lucky folks getting 90% of the wealth while the rest of the world suffers terribly.

I hope President Obama shakes the entire evil system to it's roots. I hope his policies completely destroy the status quo, brings the whole damn system crashing down.

Perhaps then we can rebuild and maybe this next time we'll get it right.

I doubt it, but what ever we rebuild will have to be better than the system we have now.

What a ridiculous article. Dick Morris is clearly taking the worst-case scenario at every turn and then making it ten times worse. His article has more in common with a 2012 conspiracy theory than it does with a legitimate commentary.

Everyone wants to scream about how Obama is a socialist and I think it's absurd. Let's not forget that the first bail out plan was passed while Bush was in office, and he was on tv for about a straight week begging us to not be concerned, pleading that we spend our money as per normal, politely asking me not to call my representative and tell her exactly what i would not do if she voted for the bail out. McCain supported it too.

Obama isn't a socialist, he's a Democrat. What's really surprising is that a "conservative republican" would actually want that or any other kind of bail out package. Becomes real easy to spot the neo cons i guess!

Socialism, if you use the Marxist definition, is when the state owns the means of production. Obama has never suggested such a nationalization of business and industry. He's a capitalist. He's a liberal but he's no socialist.

People accused Franklin D. Roosevelt of being a socialist, too, but they didn't return their Social Security checks when they got them.

Look I'm not maligning socialism by any means.

If you want a society that takes care of the highest number of people and allows the maximum number of people to be comfortable, then go for socialism.

However I believe in libertarianism. I believe that it isn't bad that a small minority of people get a disproportionate amount of wealth- these are those that worked hard/ worked smart... these are the winners.

Its as simple as that. Its as simple as choosing an economic system based on what you believe is correct.

I believe in the advancement of the highest members of society, socialists believe in the advancement of the highest numbers of society.

For me, as a libertarian capitalist, it's a shame to see America go down the route of socialism/ collectivism. However if that is the will of the people, then go ahead. Its just like the loser kid complaining about losing his marbles in a competitive game. We capitalists play for keeps, socialists do not.

Choose your camp and stand in it on an intellectual basis; don't go around being petty and claiming that this is a "witch hunt" or any other such thing.

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I am also Libertarian and I would much prefer a capitalist society where the people who HAVE, do so because they worked for it. And I don't happen to believe that this is a "special circumstance" under which the government should be bailing out private industry. I hate that both Republicans and Democrats are behind this idea so long as the earmarks keep coming.

But I really don't think it's any reason to think Dick Morris has any kind of a point, when his piece is nothing more than a stream-of-consciousness rant about when good Presidents go bad or something. It holds no merit and he should be ashamed for having submitted it for public reading!

The day I take anything Dick Morris has to say seriously is the day I take a dive off of a cliff.

I remind all of you the the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has been giving extra money away for the past eight year to a different tax bracket... To say that changing the direction and flow of said capital is socialism is a stretch. The tax burden will shift as it does in the other direction later on.

The only thing is that this indicates is that traditional conservative ideology will not be observed. I understand why this is unnerving to some of you who feel CONSERVATIVE economics is the only form of economics... Never the less things are changing, which might cause some discomfort to an ideology that prefers specific tenets to be observed.

SO I would like to know how changing the tax burden is socialism?

And if so, was it socialism when DWIGHT EISENHOWER taxed the top 1% at 90%???

Because Obamas plan is not even close to 50% TR...

Does this mean EISENHOWER was more SOCIALIST than OBAMA?

Maybe you should also refresh your history and recall that EISENHOWER, REPUBLICAN was able to pay off most of WWII direct funding, loans and all before he left office -
with a 90% tax rate for the top 1%...

The above is a fact... What is different now?
the D after the presidents name?

I highly doubt Obama will bring about socialism. In any case, I personally believe that the government should be keeping it's nose out of mine, and everyone elses, business. We shouldn't be bailing anyone out, we shouldn't be receiving stimulus checks.

If you fail, you fail. No one else should have to come and pick up the pieces for you.

reply to post by TasteTheMagick


So, are you going to return your stimulus check with a strongly-worded letter, or are you just going to tear yours up and go about your day?

Don't ya just love it when all the right wing yahoos throw out the word "socialism" as some kind of scare tatic boogyman associated with Obama and they don't even know the definition of "socialism"

It's just more Rush BS.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Originally posted by whaaa
Don't ya just love it when all the right wing yahoos throw out the word "socialism" as some kind of scare tatic boogyman associated with Obama and they don't even know the definition of "socialism"

It's just more Rush BS.

www.merriam-webster.com...

YER danged dictionaries was writen by librals, who could trust it?