Rangerland Forum Information

[Hockey101]

No popular names in the debate in South Carolina, except for Ross Perot wannabe Ron Paul.

My reaction to that group (Pawlenty looked dead, Santorum uptight)....

[Hockey101]

Obama is pretty much a socialist, and universal healthcare is an act of remodeling part of the country's policies. I wouldn't go as far as saying he wants to completely change this country to his liking, also because he can't. It takes years and a lot of power within those years to do so, which is what Europe gives to its politicians. Too much time, too much power to influence, hence why you see long "regimes" there. Thankfully this country does not allow that.

The reason why the CBO made that statement is because they double counted in their report.

No argument was played out from the alternative energy discussions and we didn't necessarily touch on the cap and trade policy itself, but more like oil prices, and automobiles.

People at first liked the stimulus because Obama, and the leaders of the Dems, presented it as a plan to quickly solve issues. However, it actually DID fail as proven by the following facts:

The recovery lost momentum in the spring as growth slowed to a 2.4 percent pace, its most sluggish showing in nearly a year and too weak to drive down unemployment.

Consumers spent less, companies slowed their restocking of shelves and the nation’s trade deficit dragged more on the economy in the April-to-June quarter. In a separate report, the Commerce Department said the recession was deeper than previously estimated.

Together, the reports raise doubts about whether employers will hire enough and consumers will spend enough to invigorate the economy. As unemployment remains near double digits, Congress could feel pressure to pass more stimulus measures to speed the recovery. So far, Republicans and some Democrats have blocked additional spending because of their concerns about the size of the deficit.

Also this link will show you more facts and data as to how the stimulus did not work.

The problem with Factcheck.org is that it is basically an Obamabot because the very leftist Kathleen Jamieson runs it behind the Annenberg Public Policy Center (well connected with Obama), which controls Factcheck.org.

He extended the Bush Tax Cuts because he had to. He actually battled not to, but even his economic advisor, and a couple of them "resigned" afterwards, said it had to be done. He had to scale back on his universal healthcare plan because he did not have enough support from his own party in the first place.

You're giving the guy full credit as if he proposed these decisions trying to be bipartisan. Not even close.

[the old mole]

Obama is pretty much a socialist

Oh wait...you're serious. Why don't you ask real-life socialists what they think about Obama (or google it)?

He has been pretty goddamn pragmatic.

+1. Obama's whole MO is getting something for the democrats by giving something to the republicans. He is the very picture of bipartisan compromise. He gives an inch to get an inch, but when you give the republicans an inch they take a mile.

[Hockey101]

Oh wait...you're serious. Why don't you ask real-life socialists what they think about Obama (or google it)?
+1. Obama's whole MO is getting something for the democrats by giving something to the republicans. He is the very picture of bipartisan compromise. He gives an inch to get an inch, but when you give the republicans an inch they take a mile.

He was a member of the New Party, a socialist party. He believes in distribution of wealth, as he stated himself. Yeah...he is pretty much a socialist if you ask someone whose family decided to flee from a socialist government. (That'd be me).

Oh, and he had no choice but to give in also because his own party told him as well on certain bills passed. I don't get this sudden thought that Obama has worked down the middle. The guy has painted his administration with leftist czars that don't need to be approved. If it wasn't for a good number of smart democrats telling him that his universal healthcare plan was disastrous, he would have passed it. The only thing that he did prior to the November elections that Republicans wanted him to do was extend the Bush tax cuts, which he didn't want in the first place, but was well advised by his own economy think tank to go with it. Post November elections the budget slash deal was fair enough. His stimulus bill had minimal support from the Republican party, but he went with it anyway.

Please.... all the sudden the guy is painted as a centrist. That is the joke of the year.

This post has been edited by Hockey101: May 16 2011, 01:28 AM

[Ebase]

He was a member of the New Party, a socialist party. He believes in distribution of wealth, as he stated himself. Yeah...he is pretty much a socialist if you ask someone whose family decided to flee from a socialist government. (That'd be me).

Right...

Here we go again. Time for the Socialist tag to be reintroduced for the umpteenth time. I defy the Rights definition of why Obama is a Socialist. I grow tired and weary of a title placed on a President who has done NOTHING in his time as President that makes him a Socialist. There is no common ownership of industry or business in the US. There is no equal class structure.

Yes, he nationalized the banks as a public utility.

He implemented Socialized medicine making health care professionals employees a government-run entity

Despite the last 2.5 years continuance of the greatest transfer of public wealth into the private sector. If he were a socialist he would take the companies over. Not guarantee loans to help them stay solvent.

Of course he recalled every one of America's troops from abroad

Ask Bernie Sanders, a Socialist how much of a Socialist Obama is.

And then of course we can also take this quote from Ron Paul: “In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist, He’s a corporatist. He takes care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

The term "Socialist" was pulled from a Republican playbook in an effort to drum fear from the American people. As American's have an innate fear of the Left-wing Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union style of government opposed during the cold-war. It was very easy to paint the President red (ironically the color of the GOP) and tell the people that he is going to turn the country into a Socialist enterprise and take your freedoms away. And then they could then advocate deregulation and lift the chains off of America's economic engine and we will all thrive. After all, that is what we do in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Because you come from Italy does not give you carte blanche to go down a list and pen things socialist.

Stop throwing around "Socialism" and elevate the conversation. Please... It makes your logic look retarded and you ain't that stupid.

[Hockey101]

Right...

Here we go again. Time for the Socialist tag to be reintroduced for the umpteenth time. I defy the Rights definition of why Obama is a Socialist. I grow tired and weary of a title placed on a President who has done NOTHING in his time as President that makes him a Socialist. There is no common ownership of industry or business in the US. There is no equal class structure.

Yes, he nationalized the banks as a public utility.

He implemented Socialized medicine making health care professionals employees a government-run entity

Despite the last 2.5 years continuance of the greatest transfer of public wealth into the private sector. If he were a socialist he would take the companies over. Not guarantee loans to help them stay solvent.

Of course he recalled every one of America's troops from abroad

Ask Bernie Sanders, a Socialist how much of a Socialist Obama is.

And then of course we can also take this quote from Ron Paul: “In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist, He’s a corporatist. He takes care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

The term "Socialist" was pulled from a Republican playbook in an effort to drum fear from the American people. As American's have an innate fear of the Left-wing Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union style of government opposed during the cold-war. It was very easy to paint the President red (ironically the color of the GOP) and tell the people that he is going to turn the country into a Socialist enterprise and take your freedoms away. And then they could then advocate deregulation and lift the chains off of America's economic engine and we will all thrive. After all, that is what we do in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Because you come from Italy does not give you carte blanche to go down a list and pen things socialist.

Stop throwing around "Socialism" and elevate the conversation. Please... It makes your logic look retarded and you ain't that stupid.

I think Obama is a believer in socialism. There are too many indications on his personal behalf that show he is a believer in socialism. Does it mean that he will act like one? No. I am not saying that the guy will run the country as a socialist. Like i said, thankfully he can't. Not only are there checks and balances in this country that block such, but there is too much money in this country to act as a socialist. My mom when being pessimistic on Obama winning said "oh great, we leave socialist Italy only to live in socialist US". Now my mom is a very intelligent lady, two phds, but she doesn't have much knowledge on the government system here in the US, also because she has little interest in politics. But i told her that it wouldn't be the case. We have elections every two years. We have a judiciary system. We have a mixed economy that is deep into capitalism. We have too many banks and corporations that have an affect on politicians here.

I think that Hillary Clinton is a socialist believer as well, but would she ever be a socialist political leader in the US? Not a chance. Too much money from corporations and big companies that benefit her. Same with Obama. Obama has some deep connections with Wall Street as well. A true socialist would never, ever approve and pass the Bush tax cuts. While he didn't really approve of them, there was too much interest to pass them.

That's politics. You don't ever go too far in politics if you act as who you are. You have to follow what you will become and that is a person with too many conflict of interests, too many favors, too many back door deals, and so on, and all the sudden who you really are doesn't make your career. What you did makes your career.

So, when i say Obama is a socialist, yeah...i think he is. But i am not going to say that he will run this country on a complete socialist system. It can't happen, as i told my mom. Let the GOP us fear tactics of calling him a socialist and people with less knowledge think that he will turn this country into socialism. It's political warfare and both the Dems and Reps do it. I will never forget Ambassador Braun at my university telling an auditorium full of students, myself present, that "President Bush will do a draft to go to war as there already is a backdoor draft" (i'm paraphrasing). Political warfare, both sides do it.

So... Obama a socialist? Yes. Obama as president being socialist? Unlikely, and if so minimally on a bureaucratic level (such as increasing government involvement in areas like healthcare).

[the old mole]

I think Obama is a believer in socialism. [etc.]

What you describe as socialism is just the American spirit of liberalism/progressivism, the idea that the growth engendered by capitalism should benefit the many and not be concentrated in the hands of the few. This is not a radical and/or socialist idea. As Abraham Lincoln said in his first State of the Union Address,

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.

Capitalism could not create the wealth it does without labor: that's as much Adam Smith as Karl Marx. Simply stating that, or believing that, does not make one a socialist; the conclusions one draws from such a belief does. Believing that maybe we should regulate and tax capital and set up laws to protect workers while still allowing capitalism the space it needs to grow does not make one a socialist. Not all government intervention into the economy is socialist; the bailouts and stimulus were definitely not socialist forms of intervention.

And what about Obama's educational policy? On education I'd say he is to the right of Bush. His policies are aimed at breaking the power of teacher unions in an effort to lower wages and increase insecurity while turning public schooling over to the free market through his advocacy of charter schools. His rhetoric is that of entrepreneurialism and market competition. You'd think a socialist, even a deep undercover in the closet socialist like Obama, would defend public education, but this is the area in which he is pushing his most radical neoliberal reforms.

[rightbug]

On education I'd say he is to the right of Bush.

From a policy perspective, Obama is pretty much a Republican circa 1993:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/eco...ry.html?hpid=z3

It's only because the window has shifted so far to the right now that he is considered a centrist. Trying to paint him as a leftist, let alone a socialist is hilarious.