So you really believe he is a Marxist huh?
Can you please just state that here clearly for all to see. Thanks.
So you really believe he is a Marxist huh?
Can you please just state that here clearly for all to see. Thanks.
Im not a Socialist. I love my country and definitely hope Obama wins
again in 2012.
You still rooting for Ron Paul? You rooting for anyone else in the Republican Party?
So you believe President Obama is a Marxist. Its ok you can say it no one is reading. lol
Ah the copout master is back. Its ok I kind of new i could call your bluff.
Last edited by Havakasha; 01-23-2012 at 06:01 PM.
OK, I think I know what you want our econmic system to look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism
Based on your comments today; this might be what you want our economic system to look like.
This isnt a socialist country. OR.... OH MY!. You not only think that President Obama is a MARXIST(different than Socialist in case you arent up on your scholarship) but you also think
we are a Socialist country? Wow.
5 Myths about President Obama
By Jonathan Alter, Published: January 20
Barack Obama’s rise in politics was so rapid, and his background so unusual, that he was immediately subjected to malicious myths — from the bogus story that he was raised Muslim to the lie that he wasn’t born in the United States. Of course, some of the raps on Obama are valid interpretations of his performance. It’s not a myth that he was long distracted from job creation, that his foreclosure policies have failed or that he was outfoxed by Republicans for much of 2011. But as Obama prepares to defend his record Tuesday in the State of the Union address, let’s dispense with some genuine misconceptions about his presidency.
1. Obama is a socialist.
This myth began with a 2008 campaign stop in Ohio, when then-Sen. Obama was caught on tape telling Joe Wurzelbacher (“Joe the Plumber”) that we needed to “spread the wealth around.” Sen. John McCain said that “sounded a lot like socialism” and cited the quote often during the campaign.
Conservatives have echoed the charge throughout Obama’s presidency. Writing in Commentary magazine in 2010, Jonah Goldberg accused him of aiming to “nationalize” two auto companies, stage a “partial government takeover” of health care and seize “managerial control” of Wall Street.
But none of this is true. By temporarily putting major banks under government control, the TARP bailout contained socialist elements — but that didn’t make Obama any more of a socialist than then-President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who launched the rescue. Obama rejected nationalizing banks and made clear that he had no interest in running the auto companies receiving TARP money.
The president’s health-care reform law keeps insurance in private hands, adopts the “individual mandate” concept from the conservative Heritage Foundation and is modeled in part on former governor Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts reform — not exactly a “Bolshevik plot,” as Obama put it. Finally, the Dodd-Frank reform bill, which Obama signed into law in 2010, regulates Wall Street but hardly controls it.
Continued by clicking on link at top of page
Last edited by Havakasha; 01-23-2012 at 06:26 PM.
Fox News Poll: 76 Percent Dissatisfied With Direction of Country
Three-quarters of American voters -- 76 percent -- are dissatisfied with how things are going in the country, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
That’s up from 69 percent who felt that way in April, and 61 percent at the beginning of the year.
At the Obama administration’s 100-day mark in April 2009, just over half of voters -- 53 percent -- were dissatisfied with the direction of the country. That number has steadily increased since. The current level of displeasure is almost back to where it was immediately before Barack Obama took office -- 79 percent dissatisfied (January 2009).
The poll shows 43 percent of voters approve and 50 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing as president. Last month 43 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved. In the period between those two ratings the president took a three-day bus tour to promote his $450 billion dollar jobs plan, Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi was killed, and the Republican presidential hopefuls held three debates.
This gets you right to the results link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ction-country/
I am also dissatisfied with the direction of the country.
Its easy to blame everything on Obama, but polls also CLEARLY show that they blame
the BUSH administration MORE for the economic situation we are in than they do Obama.
Having said that, I am not happy with everything that Obama has done, but I am certainly
much more unhappy with the Congress and their obvious attempt to hurt our economy
in order to defeat Obama.
It comes with the territory. President Obama understands that he will facing reelection
with the economy THAT IS.
Yes, Obama is a Marxist
By Shayne Heffernan
January 26, 2012 5:23 PM GMT
Without passing judgement, and simply putting Obama's economic policy in to the correct economic location, Obama is a Marxist.
The Obama administration favors progressive taxes on the rich to redistribute income and wealth from winners to losers and to ensure that all pay their fair share. (As he has said: "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.")
Obama advocates a strong state that offers the "positive right" of political and economic justice to its citizens. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a "charter of negative liberties," that dictates what government "can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf."
"The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. and Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity." - Barack Obama
Good article - summarizes several economic schools of thought.
Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 02-06-2012 at 04:53 PM.
Is President Obama Truly A Socialist?
Pew Research finds that sixty percent of Americans respond negatively to “socialism.” It is clear why President Barack Obama must avoid that label. Words are important. Political candidates who control the language of political discourse win elections.
Most of our elites would certainly not entertain the question: “Is Obama a socialist?” Only irresponsible fanatics carelessly throw around such epithets, they say. Polite circles ignore such goofiness.
As someone who has professionally studied and written about comparative economics, capitalism, and socialism for almost fifty years, the reticence to probe the core beliefs of a political leader seems odd. The question is perfectly legitimate in both an academic and political context as long as we define terms and place the discussion in proper context.
By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether Obama falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?
By this criterion, yes, Obama is a socialist.
The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks’ call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party.
Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state.
The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the “social state,” despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be.
The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the “social welfare.”
The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the European socialist agenda. I condense its main points and compare them with Obama’s statements and legislative initiatives:
PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.
Obama: Favors universal access to health care and associated benefits as a critical expansion of the welfare state.
Central Planning RULES (if you're a liberal) - page 2 starts here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrode...a-socialist/2/
Last edited by SiriuslyLong; 02-07-2012 at 10:50 AM.
Obama finds mascot for his class struggle
By K.P. Nayar | www.telegraphindia.com – Thu 26 Jan, 2012
Washington, Jan. 25: Every once in a while a country produces a symbol of its yearning for change. Like the unarmed man who bravely blocked the advance of Chinese tanks sent to clear pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989. Even if change bypasses a nation, that symbol endures and becomes a part of its conscience.
Last night, America, caught between its millionaires who have become emblematic of capitalist greed and "Occupy Wall Street" protesters who claim to represent the country's 99 per cent of those without privileges, produced an office secretary who may become the mascot for Barack Obama's re-election as President in November.
First Lady Michelle Obama had this woman, Debbie Bosanek, seated in her "box" next to Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, at the President's last State of the Union address of his current term.
Bosanek is secretary to billionaire investor Warren Buffett who has supported Obama's claim that very wealthy Americans pay less tax than their ordinary compatriots like clerks, secretaries or teachers because the US tax system favours the rich.
She is the most populist example of the need for change on which Obama plans to pivot his re-election effort. Last night's State of the Union speech was for all intents and purposes the unofficial launch of Obama's campaign for a second term.
In an email to his registered supporters addressing each one of them by first name, Obama, in fact, admitted as much, just before he left for Capitol Hill to deliver his address. "Tonight, we set the tone for the year ahead," he wrote.
While television cameras focused on Bosanek during the President's prime time speech, Obama borrowed the Marxist idea of class struggle without, of course, acknowledging Karl Marx. "Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary."
He added: "Washington should stop subsidising millionaires. In fact, if you are earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions…. Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense."
Obama's broadside against the wealthy could not have been better timed politically. His likely opponent in November, Mitt Romney, had been forced this week to reveal his tax returns. Romney, a very wealthy venture capitalist, paid 14 per cent tax during his last assessment year while the average American wage earner paid up to two-and-a-half times that figure.