Obama Socialism explained for Conservatives - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Traditional 'common sense' values and duty to the state.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13375575
The aims of socialism are often misunderstood by most Americans, as the only socialist most know of is that harmless disheveled professor on the local campus. It’s a word which can hardly be considered insulting when an elected Senator of the Socialist party caucuses with the Democrats. While socialism is sold as a way to elevate the underclass, the actual result of its application isn’t to increase the prosperity of the poor – it’s a method of achieving permanent stratification by allowing the more productive members of society to pass any losses onto others.

The reason socialism fails, as my colleague Francis Cianfrocca describes it, is that it socializes losses, not gains. It is an application of the “too big to fail” policy across all levels of society – because the losers no longer face consequences for their mistakes, businessmen are happy to make more of them, morphing into the oligarchs of the Soviet era. The rich stay rich, the poor stay poor, and the classless society becomes one where the boundaries of class are nigh impossible to break.

President Obama has drawn many comparisons to Jimmy Carter and Woodrow Wilson, but his agenda is, in its all-encompassing approach, far more ambitious. As Josh Trevino has pointed out, where liberal projects once consisted of focused attacks on either end of the economic continuum – punitive taxes on the wealthy, union enabling, the minimum wage, and Lyndon B. Johnson’s war on poverty – Obama’s agenda is designed to destroy the ability to transit from one end of the continuum to the other. Every new cushion, apparently designed to ease the pain of losses, means new barriers obstructing individual freedom of action and the expected rewards of risk-taking, resulting in an immovable class society.

What is unprecedented about this agenda is that it fundamentally alters the traditional pathways to prosperity in American life. Social mobility is a distinctive, near-unique feature of America throughout its history. But if you are going to achieve financial success in Obama’s America, you will do so by following the path of these CEOs: passing the costs of benefits onto the taxpayers, spreading the burden of your losses to others, and, ideally, selling something to the government – the customer who never stops buying.
http://biggovernment.com/bdomenech/2010 ... rican-way/

So, if you look at what Obama DOES and not what he says you can see he is clearly a socialist since he is always bailing out the rich bankers and financiers.
Any thoughts?
By DanDaMan
#13375812
I'm kinda stuck with Libertarian as my American political party since the progressives have decimated the Republican party foundation. Since I do believe there should be some, albeit minimal, moral judgments for whats best for making society safe to raise children, I find it hard to align myself as wholly Libertarian. That does not mean that I would not vote for Ron Paul, though. ;)
By ninurta
#13376646
You're no libertarian DDM, you're a theocrat. Neocons are best for you
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13376667
Social stratification is both most acute and most ossified in the United States of America. This is to do with the weakness of your welfare state, the strength of the American ideology, and the wholesale ownership of your entire socio-cultural-political system by the moneyed classes. It seems fair to speculate that Obama will fail to fundamentally change this sad state of affairs.
By Northern-Anarchist-X
#13378465
So, if you look at what Obama DOES and not what he says you can see he is clearly a socialist since he is always bailing out the rich bankers and financiers.
Any thoughts?

Ugh. What socialist would bail out a banker. Personally, I'm all for just taking the means of production, not bailing out the owners.

No serious leftist wants anything to do with helping the bourgoisie. They're the "enemy." It's not about protecting losers, it's class warfare.

Protecting the rich is inherently a feature of capitalism, because the state supercedes capital, even if it it manipulated by the wealthy. So the wealthy make things happen the way they want it to. Just like Iraq. Just like privatized healthcare.

When will American conservatives take a look and see who's got their arms around their throats?
It's a bad joke, layed off working class people calling a fellow like Obama a radical out to destroy the rich (and by extension them) by doing as they [the bourgoisie] please.

Failthread.

Bottom line, kids:
Even DDM's a closet socialist, lol. He sees the rich fail, and he wants them to. But if they're exploiting people efficiently, it's all OK?
By DanDaMan
#13378886
Ugh. What socialist would bail out a banker. Personally, I'm all for just taking the means of production, not bailing out the owners.

No serious leftist wants anything to do with helping the bourgoisie. They're the "enemy." It's not about protecting losers, it's class warfare.

Protecting the rich is inherently a feature of capitalism, because the state supercedes capital, even if it it manipulated by the wealthy. .

Please show us a definition of capitalism where it defines the state to bails out the titans and does nothing for the small companies?
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#13379104
Capitalism: an economic system where capital and land, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), are privately owned; labor, goods and resources are traded in markets; and profit, is distributed to the owners invested in technologies and industries.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13379165
Please show us a definition of capitalism where it defines the state to bails out the titans and does nothing for the small companies?

See under "Capitalism, history of".
By Northern-Anarchist-X
#13379378
Please show us a definition of capitalism where it defines the state to bails out the titans and does nothing for the small companies?

Reading may or may not be your strong point.

I specifically said it's inherent, not in capitalism itself, rather, the other half of the social structure it's a part of:

because the state supercedes capital, even if it it manipulated by the wealthy. .

In otherwords, the state, which is manipulated by capital is used to protect capital. For example, the RCMP were used against strikers in the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike. Efficient use of tax dollars? Not really. In the benefit of most Winnipegers (see: on strike)? Nope. In the benefit of whom?

I don't think I even need to say it.
By DanDaMan
#13379488
Quote:
Please show us a definition of capitalism where it defines the state to bails out the titans and does nothing for the small companies?
See under "Capitalism, history of".
True, but I'm looking for a definition of capitalism where the state bails out the super rich. IE Goldman Sachs so GS can stay rich and keep in the game to reap trillions from Cap and Trade?

Protecting the rich is inherently a feature of capitalism, because the state supercedes capital, even if it it manipulated by the wealthy. .
Well, let's not call it "capitalism" Call it Crony Capitalism. As we are learning on Beck, Obama is a Crony Capitalist Socialist. His stopping of failure of the super rich helps the likes of Goldman Sachs.
User avatar
By Nattering Nabob
#13379669
As we are learning on Beck, Obama is a Crony Capitalist Socialist. His stopping of failure of the super rich helps the likes of Goldman Sachs.


Did Beck mention the bailout happened under Bush's presidency?
By DanDaMan
#13379711
Quote:
As we are learning on Beck, Obama is a Crony Capitalist Socialist. His stopping of failure of the super rich helps the likes of Goldman Sachs.
Did Beck mention the bailout happened under Bush's presidency?
Yes. Bush was "progressive". As progressive as Obama? no.
Let's face it... the Obama ties to Goldman Sach's and the unions is far more more pronounced than Bush's oil ties.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#13379807
True, but I'm looking for a definition of capitalism where the state bails out the super rich. IE Goldman Sachs so GS can stay rich and keep in the game to reap trillions from Cap and Trade?

It's not in the definition of capitalism, but is is certainly in the history of capitalism, ever since it got started a couple of centuries ago. And what actually exists in the world is history, not abstract definitions.

Well, let's not call it "capitalism" Call it Crony Capitalism.

American (and British) capitalism has always been 'Crony Capitalism' - a self-perpetuating hereditary ruling class manipulating the political system for their own benefit. It has always been thus; they just got caught out when the financial crisis hit. Joe Public unexpectedly walked through the door and caught them with their hand in the till. Now they're trying to divert the blame onto the 'Socialist' Obama. Are you buying it? 'Cause I'm not buying it. :eh:

As we are learning on Beck, Obama is a Crony Capitalist Socialist.

You truly are insane.

His stopping of failure of the super rich helps the likes of Goldman Sachs.

The ruling class using their influence on the state apparatus to maintain themselves as a ruling class.... who'da thunk it? :roll:
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#13379811
DanDaMan wrote:Let's face it... the Obama ties to Goldman Sach's and the unions is far more more pronounced than Bush's oil ties.

This is definitely true. I hear Obama was at one time the CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Oh wait, that never happened.
User avatar
By grypo
#13379948
So, if you look at what Obama DOES and not what he says you can see he is clearly a socialist since he is always bailing out the rich bankers and financiers.
Any thoughts?

Yes, awesome logic pretzels are awesome!
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#13379958
It's not in the definition of capitalism, but is is certainly in the history of capitalism, ever since it got started a couple of centuries ago. And what actually exists in the world is history, not abstract definitions.

It does seem to me that our rightist friends have some difficulties grappling with really existing capitalism.
By Northern-Anarchist-X
#13380095
True, but I'm looking for a definition of capitalism where the state bails out the super rich. IE Goldman Sachs so GS can stay rich and keep in the game to reap trillions from Cap and Trade?

That's irrelevant to my argument. If you want to play dictionary, don't look at me. I never said capitalism is defined as such. Rather, the state supercedes capital, despite essentially being a puppet of it. History shows us as much.

As Potemkin said.

Well, let's not call it "capitalism" Call it Crony Capitalism. As we are learning on Beck, Obama is a Crony Capitalist Socialist. His stopping of failure of the super rich helps the likes of Goldman Sachs.

Why? The existing explanation I've put in already works almost seamlessly. For one thing, it doesn't need the blame game as an end to itself.

Just a little honesty.

Exactly. I think this is the caution to those tha[…]

Spoken like a true anthropologist. This is a pers[…]

You probably think Bill nye is an actual scientis[…]

@Pants-of-dog intent is, if anything, a key comp[…]