Is Obama a Socialist?

@laglen (19783)
United States
July 10, 2010 10:30am CST
In an article on Fox today, Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg found in a poll that 55% of likely voters agree that the word "socialist" describes Obama. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/09/majority-likely-voters-agree-socialist-accurately-describes-obama/ Merriam webster describes socialism as any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods I see this is banks and automotive companies system of society or group living in which there is no private property with this I give redistribution of wealth as an example. Please let me know if you dont agree that Obama is in favor of this, I will gladly back that up. So my question is do you think that the word socialist describes Obama and why. Please give facts, not feelings. Sources would be appreciated as well.
9 responses
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
10 Jul 10
Well, before I post, let me give a big LMMFAO at debateman who, with brilliant ease, was able to turn a question about people describing Obama as a "socialist" into a blame Bush rant. That truly takes practice! People in America cannot rightly identify with the "true" (irony abound lol) meaning of what socialism is because most of us have never been taught it through America's history revision and we've certainly never lived through it. The best was can do is to morph the word to fit our understandings. This gives the pro-Obamabots a field day in playing semantics. But it's tired and old and, if you're already sleepy, will work better than Lunesta to get you 8 hours. If I had to describe what I personally think Obama "is" in those terms, I would say he's a social progressive radical (60s version) who believes in redistribution, large and controlling government, social justice and that America is a failed system entirely that needs rebooting. ('Radical,' I believe, due to his undeniable connections that he conveniently avoids now but WERE present during his pre-presidential run, not to mention his appointment of unquestionably commie-wannabe czars and such...) If I had to describe what I personally think Obama "is" on a sign, I would write "SOCIALIST" in big, bold letters. George Bush was along those same lines, in my opinion. Obama is like Bush's progressive leanings x50, plus a different core ideology. In the context of American capitalism, "socialist" describes Obama fittingly I believe, as the connotation of the word is the exact opposite of what we had. To folks who want to play semantics and put on their Keith Olbermann glasses and practice their diction, "socialist" is obviously a smear that only racists use.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19783)
• United States
10 Jul 10
as usual maters, i agree except one point, that is regarding debater. I dont think it is practice, but it comes naturally.
• United States
10 Jul 10
Mater, republicans have done a great job of blaming Obama for EVERYTHING including TARP, and the bailouts of EVERYONE. When it really was Bush that did all of this before he left office. You can say what you want to say, it is a free country, but can you show me where Obama announced that HE was giving GM and Chrysler TARP money? I won't hold my breathe Mater!!!!!
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Jul 10
Hold your breath or don't. Plunge your head into a toilet if you're feeling froggy. I don't let Bush off the hook. The guy was a progressive (different core, but progressive nonetheless) and perpetuated the BS before Obama decided to extend the spending agenda tenfold. But I don't need to put him on blast to EXCUSE Obama. I know Bush was a f'up. Now I'm focused on the new f'up. Everything else is just everything else. Find JB if you want QuibbleFest 3000.
@dboman (457)
• United States
13 Jul 10
Laglen, you didn't mention the "social control" aspect of socialism. Taxes, government mandates, cap-and-trade, moratoriums, electing Supreme Court justices based on "compassion"...all of these are forms of social control in one way or another. Just because someone supports one or two of these doesn't make them a socialist. The desire to exert social control (of which Obama has proven he has), the desire to expand government and contract private industry, the desire to institute massive social programs and create a nanny state, the belief that the "ruling elite" know what's better for the masses than themselves, redistribution of wealth, and the belief that government is the cure for all of society's ills all fall along the socialist/communist line of thinking. Obama has proven his desire for all of these "theories". If anyone wants to challenge me on this, I will provide specific examples and links. Good discussion laglen.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19783)
• United States
13 Jul 10
I just read through the whole discussion and I am dizzy. I have been working the last few days... think I will go back to work. I think there were maybe three responses that actually addressed the topic. Thank you for adding that, funny how different people see things. I believe Obama has made no secret, his desire to expand government and redistribute wealth. In my opinion, that is the biggest red flag you could wave.
@EvanHunter (4030)
• United States
11 Jul 10
What a surprise Fox news says he is a socialist...lol, really what did you expect from a biased media outlet. Well here is the other side of the coin there was plenty of things that used to be done in American that were done because they were the right thing to do and not just to make a profit. Universal health care coverage will mean insurance companies will make even more money than they did before so I don't see why everyone says "socialist" when its clearly being pushed for a "capitalist" agenda and backed by private companies. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html "Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept. "Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."" "Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks."He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."" Still think Obama is a socialist? Lets take a look at who donated to his campaign, you will notice that there just might be a reason why he has so many wall street people in his cabinet: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638 Goldman Sachs $994,795, Citigroup Inc $701,290, JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132, Sure doesn't look like socialist are backing him to me. This might explain why he was so keen on carrying on with Bush's plans for the bank bailouts.
@Ezra710 (137)
• United States
10 Jul 10
Actually Obama is a progressive. Much of his agenda is rooted in the way of one Saul Alinsky. Some other noted progressives; Teddy Roosevelt and the Clintons. There are progressives in both parties. It is a very dangerous doctrine and I hope the American people would stop falling for the tricks of these kinds of people at election time. One idea of the progessives is to have the ability to change the Constitution.
• United States
11 Jul 10
Given that it was the Founders that designed the Constitution such that it can be changed, are you suggesting that the country was founded by progressives?
2 people like this
• United States
11 Jul 10
don't twist it the Constitution can't not be changed on the whim of some moron in government. a progressive is some one who is advocating social change not creating a country as to Obamas socialism read the other post I made below
@Ezra710 (137)
• United States
11 Jul 10
Addressing my poor word choice in the use "changing" , regarding the Constitution. I should have used the word amending. My apologies. The Progressives want to make it easier and faster to make amnedments to the Constitution. They also would like to, when it is felt necessary, to remove power from the states more easily, powers granted by the Constitution. Progressives are not just advocating social change, they have a full platform, the party dates back to 1912. I do not suggest the founding fathers were Progressives, on the contrary.
• United States
11 Jul 10
the question was whether Osama oops Obama was socialist or not and going by the proof he is you crazy left wingers need to stop blaming Bush for the worlds ills. true he was a progressive and I did not agree with him all the time and yes he started the bail outs but the dems have been destroying the US for years and with there new king in the White house they are unchecked. as for health care I agree we could have changed it but to give control of it to the government is crazy. NATIONAL HEALTH CARE DOSE NOT WORK take off the blinders and look to our neighbors, the ones who can afford it they come here. look at Greece socialism worked so well there economy has collapsed, ask them if they like socialism the less the government control the better and yes Bush created the DHS ok we could do alot by eliminating a good quarter of the cabinet positions. people are sick of the way things are being CHANGED that's why there is a tea party now, to bring back the way the government is suppose to be the way the founders meant for us
• Canada
11 Jul 10
You're hilarious. Canadians love our health care. Sure, it could be improved, but we'd never trade it in for the awful American system. Polls have consistently shown around 90% preference of the Canadian system to the American one. Our health care system was last ranked higher than yours. No politician would EVER get away with removing our publically funded health care because it is so important to us. An extremely small number of Canadians, including the rich, turn to American health care. National health care does work. As America is showing, privatization and lack of regulation most definitely does not. Do not speak of things you do not understand. The Greek economy did not collapse because they are 'socialists.' Perhaps do some research, because idiotic blanket statements like that are absurd. And, for the record, I do not like Obama. He is essentially a Republican anyhow.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Jul 10
Greece collapsed because It could not afford to sustain the socialist policies. The American Health care system is the best in the world we had no problem with it the only real issue was that not everyone could pay for it and not everyone wanted health care but now are SOCIALIST president is forcing it on us. its not just the the socialist Canadians to the north that has people who can afford it come to our country for health care, the rich only buy the best!!! Obama is a socialist liberal not a republican obviously your definition is different than the real one
• Canada
11 Jul 10
Clearly, you are hopelessly narrow minded. However, for anyone else who may read this and has a better learning capacity, I'll try to make this simple: The economic collapse that happened in Greece was due to several reasons, the most important of which were unregulated spending and lending that is directly tied to the banking collapse in America. You see, the problem is a lack of regulation - the complete opposite of what occurs in Socialist country. Yes, they had plenty of social welfare programs. But that's not specifically what led to the problems. It was overspending on these programs due to a severe lack of regulation and oversight by the government. Why is there a lack of regulation? Because that is what happens in the free market under capitalism. What legitimate source says that, "American Health care system is the best?" No seriously, this is not an argument that can be based on opinion. As for Obama not being a republican, no, he does not call himself that. So what? Look a couple posts up to my original post on this topic: Obama has enforced a lot of Republican legislation.
1 person likes this
• United States
10 Jul 10
The fact is that President Obama has never advocated ending the institution of private property ownership. The government taking a temporary and partial ownership stake in companies that voluntarily accept taxpayer-funded bailouts does not qualify as such.
@Taskr36 (13928)
• United States
11 Jul 10
What if it's permanent ownership with a majority stake and the president even fires the CEOs as he did with GM?
• United States
11 Jul 10
Still not socialism: the institution of private property ownership remains. Governmental ownership of public parks doesn't qualify as socialism either.
1 person likes this
• United States
11 Jul 10
socialism is a slow process in a democratic Republic like ours. one step at a time. as for whether or not Obama is a socialist look at his tax cuts, tax increase on anyone making $200,000 or more. he is decently a socialist. I leave you with a quote that sounds alot like Obamas tax policy " from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" by Karl Marx
@anniepa (26304)
• United States
13 Jul 10
I saw that poll and all that proved to me is that 55% of the voters have no real clue what socialism actually is, which is no big surprise. It also should come as no big surprise to anyone here that my answer to your title question is NO, President Obama is not a Socialist. Heck, according to some he's "more conservative than Ronald Reagan". I'm not sure I agree with that in most ways but I don't think he's even a "liberal", I'd describe him as very SLIGHTLY left of center. I still support our President but the ways in which he's disappointed me and the things on which I disagree with him are because he's not liberal enough, in my humble opinion. He refused to come even close to pushing for a "government takeover of health care", which is how many would describe the single-payer system I was hoping for, instead settling for a bill that, while it's better than what we have now and will cover millions of additional Americans, is also a HUGE gift to the insurance companies, giving them millions of new customers. Annie
• United States
15 Jul 10
health care is a joke. people are now going to have to wait to receive care and don't tell me that won't happen because it will, look at the VA medical system. things will be rationed routine care will take longer than it use to. not to mention we are out of 840+ billion dollars. but just drink the kool aid lets hope its not from just hope its not from MR Jones or the long wait at the hospital will kill you
• United States
15 Jul 10
If it does turn out that people have to wait to receive care, that'll be a distinct improvement for the millions who can't afford care at all under the current system.
• Bulgaria
11 Jul 10
LOL i never laugh like that OBAMA-socialist. How one mass murder can be socialist.Oooo my mistake now days he can be what ever he want like the Nobel prize he won for peace.I inspect soon that they gonna "discover" that Obama's mother was virgin when she was pregnat with him. Rlly thou stop believe in everythink u see or hear on TV NEWS cuz they are nothink more then comersale and movies payet and produced by somebody with some purpose and interest(the most popular are money and power). WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFE!!
@Memnon (2173)
11 Jul 10
Interesting to read some US political conversation. In the UK the word 'socialist' conjures a far more left wing image. I would sum up UK politics thus: Labour. A party of tired Christian democrats who stole Tory clothes to get themselves elected under Blair in order that he become rich. Masquerading as the Labour party. Conservatives. A party of younger Christian democrats who have adopted some traditionally Liberal ideas to make themselves appear modernists: posing as the Conservative party. In other words, we will have a centre left Christian democrat government for years to come, in all but name.