Star Trek

I don't think President Obama is a socialist. I don't think he's out to ruin America. I think he's a President who has faced some extreme economic times and that was the result of his time in office working with Congress--saving the Auto Industry, 2 points shaved off the unemployment, nearly 4 trillion in spending reductions reccommended by the Simpson-Bowles commission, averting the next Great Depression, creating 2 million jobs with the stimulus, raised taxes on the top-income earners (450,000 dollars or more), and a STAGNANT DEFICIT. What do I mean? The deficit isn't 1.8 trillion right now. It has grown by 100 billion dollars per year. That's it. If you followed the Bush Administration, not only didn't he cut government spending, but he never had a reduction in the annual deficit and he kept the two wars off the books, going back to Congress with resolution after resolution for funding.

I like that he is for Gay Marriage. Equal protection is equal protection. I'm not expecting you to go to a Gay wedding, just allow them to be legal. Not prosecuting DOMA, ending DADT, lobbying the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA, extending benefits to government employeees, allowing same-sex visitiations in hospitals, etc.--no one has been kinder to the community in that office. 

Health Care costs have been curbed. Have they stopped growing? No. Do we have to work on Medicare? Yes. Social Security? Some time in the next 10 years. But those fights can come because of all that's been done already. 

As for Drones and civil liberties in this time of war, the Administration has NO DIFFERENCE in POLICIES between himself and PRESIDENT BUSH. If he's a tyrant, so was Bush. This is about the expanding power of the Executive Branch since the Reagan Administration. Unitary Theory. 

You don't have to like everything America has done. It's okay to poke at it to get a better union. I think this is a bit of hyperbole and I don't like what it's done to our elections--that he's the end of the Republic.  You only get to say that so many times and be wrong before people stop listening to you. 

Now feel free to chew on me for what I've said...

I won't chew on you-you're welcome to believe what you want. I just prefer to examine facts.

However, health care costs have not been curtailed-ask any doctor, ask any insurance agency. Ask the company I work for who used to fund 100% of employee premiums and now must have employees pay in because of rising costs.

Doctors are leaving the field because they will not be reimbursed-reimbursement for Medicaid and Medicare is down under the new law.

Obama did not save the Auto Industry-the Auto Industry would have survived through bankruptcy court as is the capitalist system. Obama saved the unions, which are his biggest supporters.

Unemployment is a false number because people are actually leaving the workforce and not trying anymore. The rate is actually higher than reported.

Drone strikes are a violation of habeus corpous and it took the goading of Congress to get AG Holder to admit there is no constitutional power allowing it.

Obama allows guns to go in to the hands of drug cartels and gets Americans killed. Obama wants the rich to pay more when they are already paying the majority of the tax burden in some cases.

Obama wants to redistribute wealth and increase the welfare state. He and Pelosi chalk food stamps increasing up to a victory.

He is a socialist, wanting government to regulate EVERY aspect of American life.

"That is incorrect. Socialism has been tried throughout history, in many different parts of the world, all with the same success-none."

None? 20th century American history disagrees.

"That is a common argument for socialism is that it hasn't really been tried. Yes it has and it has failed."

The "common argument" is actually against socialism. In fact, you just used it... "all with the same success-none." When it comes down to it, there has never been a truly socialist nation. Denying that fact with never prove otherwise.

Also, keep in mind that "socialist nation" and "nation with socialist programs" do not equal the same thing.

"Since this is a nation with a government "by the people" and Obama used public money to purchase the auto industry. That is socialist because it brings control of production either under state control or public control-not an oxymoron."

Of course, if that's the case, then the American federal government was socialist right from the begining. Are you suggesting such a thing?

"No, that link was not a joke. The site is designed to promote freedom of individuals and personal responsibility, something severely lacking in the USA currently."

Then explain to me how someone who supports and adheres to those concepts just took that site for a joke.

"Please do me a favor, for the sake of discussion, and define liberal. Clearly they are separate from the modern Democrats, yet they unfortunately are all lumped together. Keep in mind that the definition of liberal has changed over the centuries and even modern American liberals, who hold to a more Keynsian economic model, encourage more government regulation, not less. So, Obama is an American liberal, not a classic liberal. Classic liberals are closer to libertarians, politically, than Democrats. Given the disconnect between the American Liberal definition and the European liberal definition, I can understand the confusion in using that term."

My own statements thus far should provide you with the answer you seek. Beyond that, well, I'm not very good at giving specific definitions. Ask me a question and I will answer, provided I have the time.

"If you are for liberty and limited government, would that make you more libertarian?"

 No, not necessarily. The political spectrum has both an X and a Y axis. The X is the basic "left/liberal" and "right/conservative." The Y is (at top) authoritarian and (at bottom) libertarian.

In other words, both liberal and conservative governments can be authoritarian or libertarian, depending on their institutions.

Also, keep in mind that there is a difference between Libertarian (the politican party) and libertarian (the political philosophy).

I would prefer Obama as Prime Minister than Cameron as Prime Minister. He is such a nice guy.  

I think this sums up the 20th century of socialsim in Europe:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html?_r=0

Rising costs, deficit sending and unfunded liabilities have started to destroy Europe's economy, Greece being only one of several to being to feel it.

So, there has never been a socialist nation, yet the 20th century proves that socialism works? Please explain because that sounds like a contradiction.

If there has never been a truly socialist nation, then what would it look like? Why do socialist programs fail, but an actual socialist nation would work? I am afraid that doesn't make much sense to me.

I have no response to your own response to the site. I found it interesting and a good read, but that is just me.

By the way, I will still be referring to Obama as a liberal and a socialist. His behavior indicates very much is desire for public ownership and control of private life. He does not trust Congress to do what he wants and would rather circumvent Congress through his own executive power. He should have let the automobile industry go through bankruptcy rather than try to "save it." Now they are in the same position as before. Bankruptcy would have forced them to renogotiate their contracts, not carry forward with the same practices that bankrupted them in the first place.

Your own statements thus far indicate more libertarian-conservative view but I am not sure as of yet.

Wow, did you guys hear about Elizabeth Warren's 22 dollar minimum wage? How did that women even get elected?? Does she not understand basic economics?

For those of you who don't understand: companies are trying to make money. If they have to pay their workers 22 dollars an hour, they'll move someplace else, where it's cheaper to hire workers. Either that, or they'll lay people off. I thought we wanted to create jobs? To think Romney was accused of sending jobs overseas!

Only those that don't understand the most basic of economic principles support the idea of a government mandated minimum wage instead of one based on supply/demand of the value of the work.

The fundamentals of economics sometimes escapes most socialist policy believers, because they genuinely believe what they are doing is good for the ignorant masses. The problem is that such artificial controls don't work in economics, because, as you say, companies will leave and try to make a profit elsewhere. Socialims discourages profit, innovation and work ethic.

I would like to give a shout out to a book that I have been reading regarding socialism and it includes a chapter on Obamacare, showing that isn't some old tome.

Yes, yes, I know that there are many who would argue that Obama isn't socialist, which is why I recommend this book. It brings a simple definition to socialism and allows for more meaningful discussion.

Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism Review

If the 4th Amendment implications of this doesn't scare you, I don't know what will.  (Yes... this problem was before Obama, but he's just expanding it.)

"I think this sums up the 20th century of socialsim in Europe:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/world/europe/23europe.html?_r=0

Rising costs, deficit sending and unfunded liabilities have started to destroy Europe's economy, Greece being only one of several to being to feel it."

I didn't say anything about Europe. I spoke, always, from an American point of view.

"So, there has never been a socialist nation, yet the 20th century proves that socialism works? Please explain because that sounds like a contradiction."

20th century AMERICAN history.

"If there has never been a truly socialist nation, then what would it look like?"

I don't know. Since it's never been tried, it's impossible to say one way or the other.

"Why do socialist programs fail, but an actual socialist nation would work?"

Socialist programs don't fail out of hand. That's the problem with anti-socialist arguments.

"By the way, I will still be referring to Obama as a liberal and a socialist."

Okay.

"His behavior indicates very much is desire for public ownership and control of private life."

Sorry, but "public ownership" and "control of private life" are two opposising concepts.

"He does not trust Congress to do what he wants and would rather circumvent Congress through his own executive power."

Nothing new, as far as the Executive Branch is concerned. Bush did the same. So did Clinton. So did Bush Sr. I'm sure Reagan did so as well.

"He should have let the automobile industry go through bankruptcy rather than try to 'save it.'"

What about Bush's bank bail-outs?

"Now they are in the same position as before. Bankruptcy would have forced them to renogotiate their contracts, not carry forward with the same practices that bankrupted them in the first place."

Except those industries have the option of paying off their loans, which is basically what they owe. Which, from my understanding, is a libertarian option.

It is both ridiculous and short-sighted.

The minimum wage should follow inflation, placing the minimum wage at (if I'm not mistaken) an average of about $10.50 per hour.

The minimum wage should directly reflect the cost of living. As such, it seems to me that, rather than raising the minimum wage, we should look into reducing the cost of living.

Hey!  Whatever happened to sequestration!?!?!?

A government document released on February 14, 2013 shows that the contract for the Biden's one night stay at the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand cost the taxpayers $585,000.50.

How many of us would pay half a million for a single night somewhere?

How do you reduce the cost of living ? having everyone give up their cars  ?  eat two meals a week ? no compter no cell phone ? a wage increase is what we need, and as usual Obama is on the right track, he wants to make America the country everyone will be proud of.

I didn't say anything about Europe. I spoke, always, from an American point of view.

Please be more specific, then. Socialism is not just an American idea nor is it the first country to be tried in. It has been tried, in many countries, cities and people’s all with destructive, devaluing or crippling results. Europe is filled with examples, and if America continues, we will be the next example.

The entirety of the argument, “We cannot know because it has never been tried” is a straw man argument. It assumes that we must try and experiment to discover that the values are false or unworkable.

But socialism has been tried, and it has been found wanting. It cripples nations with debt and unfunded liabilities-why would America be any different? American is unique in its hard work ethos, its desire to rise up and be better, not because the government says we have to but because we choose to. But, that isn’t what socialism promotes. Socialism promotes dependency, it promotes selfishness and promotes laziness.

Sorry, but "public ownership" and "control of private life" are two opposising concepts.

Not exactly, though I am sure, once more, we will debate terms. By public ownership, I mean public monies and policies being set up to control the private life of the individual. To aid this discussion, I will give a more concise definition of socialism, one I found in a book on the subject:

“The central planning of non-public goods/services.”

Central planning is the core of socialism. Regardless of the other descriptors, at the heart of this economic system is the desire to control outcomes of the market and the products that people purchase. This concept is antithetical to freedom and free markets. The concepts of freedom and socialism don’t mix very well as eventually you either have one or the other.

This is why I call Obama a socialist. He wishes to bring all aspects of private industry under federal control. The automobile industry was a start. Obamacare does it with the health care industry. It is nothing new in the education system. Americans have been experimenting with socialism for years but now it is piling up debt and seeking to expand itself.

Nothing new, as far as the Executive Branch is concerned. Bush did the same. So did Clinton. So did Bush Sr. I'm sure Reagan did so as well.

Obama has done more, gone farther and shows no respect for the Constitution, except when it suits him politically. I’ll not disagree with Bush Jr or Clinton, but cite examples of Regan and Bush Sr.

What about Bush's bank bail-outs?

Socialist. Should have let them fail.

Except those industries have the option of paying off their loans, which is basically what they owe. Which, from my understanding, is a libertarian option.

But they don’t. They are bound by contracts to the auto unions which result in them being in a worse financial situation than before.

Bankruptcy was a better option.

Obama is not on the right track. He hasn't demonstrated one way to make more jobs or increase wages, other than increasing government, the public sector and the power of the unions.

Obama wants to see America changed to suit his vision of reduced American influence in the world, increased government power and reduction of individual freedom.

You reduce the cost of living by reducing costs. You reduce costs by reducing government regulations and taxes that businesses must pass on to the consumer, which artifically bump up the cost.