United Liberty
Obama’s Socialism Problem
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 8:25am | posted by Jason Pye
Barack Obama got a little touchy over a question from The New York Times during a recent interview:
President Obama was so concerned that he may have mishandled a question from New York Times reporters about whether he was a socialist, that he called the paper to clarify his position. The president initially answered the question aboard Air Force One saying, “Let’s take a look at the budget, the answer would be no.”
The president explained he wanted a return to the tax rates of the 1990s by giving a tax-cut to 95 percent of workers. But the president may have felt that was too dismissive, and called the Times from the Oval Office explaining: “It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question… it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. it wasn’t on my watch.”
Asked whose watch he was talking about he said: “I just think it’s clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system.”
Here’s the question:
Q. The first six weeks have given people a glimpse of your spending priorities. Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?
A. You know, let’s take a look at the budget – the answer would be no.
The Times didn’t buy it and followed with this, “Is there anything wrong with saying yes?” Obama then gives a long, drawn out answer that is just loaded with examples of his expansion of an already huge government.
Then comes the next question:
Q. So to people who suggested that you are more liberal than you suggested on the campaign, you say, what?
A. I think it would be hard to argue, Jeff. We have delivered on every promise that we’ve made so far. We said that we would end the war in Iraq and we’ve put forward a responsible plan.
Really? “I’m not liberal because we’re delivering on promises and we’re pulling out of Iraq.” What kind of BS response is that?
Obama was so concerned about the question that he called back and not only clarified his answer, but took a moment to blame Bush (and rightly so) for his expansion of government:
Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn’t on my watch. And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement – the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it’s important just to note when you start hearing folks through these words around that we’ve actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can’t say the same.
Free-marketers were at odds with Bush for much of his administration, including the expansion of Medicare. Obama forgets that he voted for TARP and his party is also responsible, along with many Republicans, for aiding the Bush Administration in expanding Medicare.
It’s clear being labeled a socialist bothers him. Everything he is doing is leading to more centralization of government. How is that not socialism?
Being labeled a socialist bothers him because it is NOT TRUE! The end of this article states that “Everything he is doing is leading to more centralization of government.” - which is false. Since when is advocating more government spending equal to socialism? He is not advocating state ownership in means of production or distribution of goods. I have yet to hear him tell us where to line up for bread.
Truth of the matter, he has been reluctant to nationalize banks (even though it may be required) - a true socialist would have jumped all over that one.
You may disagree with the increased taxes and the increased spending, but that does not make him a socialist. I can understand why he dismissed the question as silly.
Makes sense to me why he’s a little touchy about the socialism thing. People on the right are trying their best to saddle Obama with this very scary label, and he could cease to be effective if the people start to actually believe this crap.
It’s one thing to have some social institutions (like national banks and a post office both advocated by our founders) it’s quite another to advocate for the end of private industry and that all goods and services (from jet planes to orange juice) be held in common by the people and managed by the government.
That people in the US equivocate a 40% tax rate with socialism makes we want to weep. I fear God will smite us because we are dumb.
What is this all about? Let’s get something straight here folks, Socialism (not a million miles away from communism in principle, although all systems are open to abuse) doesn’t work because it relies too much on everyone thinking the same; it always has existed in certain places in life anyway. In the heart of many businesses decent team workers are socialists (by their actions, not beliefs).
But in case you haven’t noticed, Capitalism just kicked the living crap out of us as well! That’s what people should be concentrating on also; Capitalism has shown it can fail so how do you approach those who stood out above the rest and restrict them their freedom by changing the rules? Keep internal business the same; the restrictions need to be on international business, where I personally believe socialism has to exist. Why; because the principle of finding a country to do the ‘crap jobs’ for half the price, thereby allowing a government to increase any minimum wage, causes fundamental damage to the structure of any society.
Individually, they are boring, dead end jobs with terrible pay and sometimes terrible conditions, but as a whole they are a huge percentage of industry in many countries. If you get rid of one thing, the finances insist you strengthen another, in this case, international dealings on the stock market and various other money to money orientated dealings. Money to money dealings are no different to any other transaction in business, except physical product.
Now that’s just fine when things are dandy, but when recessions hit money loses its value. Physical product then becomes more valuable than currency in theory. Everyone is losing money around the world so no one is actually receiving it(i.e. the system has drawn to a virtual halt); that’s impossible unless that money never existed in the first place (there is nothing in the system that says this cannot theoretically reach zero). That means a country can be worth nothing around the world, but that is an impossibility of reason.
Physical product cannot devalue below its requirement; A bed is always a bed, whether the money that bought is worthless or not (I’m sure you understand what I mean). How many people sit in front of desks commanding and controlling what goes on in the financial world? You can bet your bottom dollar, it is millions of different personalities in different cultures; that seems the last place I’d want to put my money, thanks. Oh no, my mistake, I would want to put my money in a bank even less (how ludicrous does that really and truthfully sound). I wonder if they’ll class themselves as bad debtors/lenders? Obama is not a socialist, he’s a man who has realised he is in a whole lot of s—t and to tell you the truth, anyone taking this on fresh must have ten years taken off his life. I’m not judging him until he succeeds or fails in something, but let’s hope dithering doesn’t end up becoming part of his personality because this will snap us all up if they don’t move quicker with the right ideas (here he goes again; another blinking story).
You are right about Bush though, but don’t forget he was an international schemer; other responsible politicians are to blame for this mess as well. Creating a false economy should be and probably is, a crime.
The happiest people on the planet live in countries that are secular socialistic democracies. Please look it up. Norwegians are the happiest people. Socialism is an economic term. Secular means the nation is not a theocracy. Democracy, of course, is a social term. We live in the oldest and the best democracy.
We have just spent the past eight years in a pure capitalistic state. Greed and the acquisition of money ruled. We’re paying for that now.
Pure capitalism does not work. Pure communism does not work. There is a middle way. Socialism. People have been taught to froth at the mouth at the very mention of the word but most of them don’t even know what that means. Is Social Security a socialistic plot? Bush tried to privitize it. That’s capitalism. Is public education socialistic? Bush went out of his way to destroy the public school system.
A well managed democratic secular socialist state is the best the world has to offer. Take it or leave it.
I’ll leave it. I don’t want to live in a country where the government can “well-manage” my life (though government and well-manage are a contradiction in terms). If I did, I’d move to a country that has this form of government. I choose to live in America that has a Constitution that limits the role of government in the lives of “We the People”. If you want to change this country to a socialistic democracy (instead of a constitutional republic) please have the intellectual honesty to admit the Constitution doesn’t allow this and work to change the Constitution. If you manage to do that, trust me, I’ll leave and find a freer place to live. I understand Costa Rica is becoming more libertarian.
There is no inherent contradiction between having a written constitution and limited government and being a socialist democracy. What you really need to be looking at is weather or not our system here in the US is actually working.
My sense of the state of our union is that we’re in a situation where we have lots of theoretical rights but not the ability to use them because we lack the funds. For example, there are a lot of potential entrepreneurs out there, but they stick with their corporate jobs due to the cost and risk of healthcare in the U.S.
In those socialist state, by contrast, it is more difficult to go out and earn money, and the government has it’s fingers in a lot of pies, but that system affords more people more oportunity to do what they actually wish to do.
Or I could just say, can you afford to take 4 weeks off from work? I can’t. Just how free are we?
————————————————————————————
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.” - Thomas Jefferson, 1785
Socialism exists in society today, but that’s what people have to understand; part of socialism isn’t a political standing, it’s a natural trait and therefore filters into the areas it’s required in society.
Many work places have socialist attitudes towards working environments because creating a community inside the factory helps people to help each other. But can anyone tell me a boss is better off as a socialist? Not in my eyes.
Norway is a wonderful place, but you cannot compare a nation with a population of just under 5 million to a nation that stretches over 300 million. Anonymous is correct about the fact that pure communism or capitalism does not work (although neither have been tried without the other interfering somewhere along the lines).
That money market just fell around the world so how do we deny socialism can work, when nothing else sorts that at the top? That’s exactly what capping means; capping means a limit to your trade or even with an outstretched thought, sharing the business. Statistically, that works because spirits are lifted when work is shared; not so many people get laid off, smaller individuals get the rightful impression that the big boys are looking after them and so on. But down the lower ends they need us to have ‘honest greed’ for this to work, the want for more money, but with an honest way to get it. Who are they kidding? Wonder down any street and there are probably a hundred different personalities around you with everything from completely blank to sinister, evil thoughts; how are you going to make them all think the same; help your brother and community whilst your government shows you how?
So, by my reckoning, the most competitive people need to be socialist as they are dealing with all types, and the people they are trying to turn socialist need to be capitalist; but where does crime fit into a political category? The truth is crime only exists because of the way we transfer this asset representation; instant cash runs a majority of crimes.
That’s why I think it may be possible to take a massive sting out the ID card and reduce crime to virtually zero. What if they made a bank-government (local or state) style card that’s directly linked to a computer inside the bank that has all your details anyway. Then all the government has to have on an ID card is a few lines of program that give a picture verification and whether you are wanted for crimes. On the other hand, that still will not change the fact that we all forget our wallets at one time or another and could still be fined or worse when we are only guilty of forgetfulness. I am not condoning them, I am saying there are ways to do it that makes sure your civil liberties are not infringed and gives you something mutually beneficial - freedom from crimes that run on INSTANT CASH! It also means that the personal part of the process is left in civilian hands.
All schemes can work on paper, but it’s the same problems they all face because they read through the logic of the brain instead of the whole person and that massive part of us called emotions. To them everything is written in black and white and that’s exactly how they believe we should see it; no allowance for emotional toils in life or simple, natural lack of common sense. It’s only the mixture of chemicals feeding the rest of our body and brains; shall we mess with them next? We need both because we are both; moral and competitive.
Post new comment